1,015 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,841 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court denied the defendant's motion to reopen discovery because the defendant failed to show good cause and excusable neglect.
-
The court held that the prisoner's pro se civil rights complaint was deficient for failing to use the required form, pay the filing fee, or move to proceed in forma pauperis, and for failing to meet the requirements for a temporary restraining order.
-
The court held that the amended complaint is a shotgun pleading and that service on defendants Kohr and AIPAC was improper, leading to a lack of personal jurisdiction over them. However, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.
-
The court held that the prisoner's pro se complaint was deficient for failing to use the required form, pay the filing fee, or move for IFP, and for failing to meet the standards for a temporary restraining order.
-
The court recommended dismissal of the plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-15
The court dismissed the action because the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee, move to proceed in forma pauperis, and comply with procedural rules for filing a complaint and seeking injunctive relief.
-
The court held that a Section 1983 claim against supervisors based on respondeat superior or failure to respond to grievances is not cognizable, and claims against officials must specify individual or official capacity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Eighth Amendment.
-
Appellants lack standing to bring a removal action under the Citizens' Bill of Rights, and the removal provision requires a finding that the City itself violated the charter, not merely that a city official violated it in his individual capacity.
-
The court held that the admission of the plaintiff's prior conviction and drug use evidence was proper, and denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an appeal.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction must be denied because she failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, specifically the 'color of law' element required for a § 1983 claim.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-27
A prisoner's claim of excessive force against an individual officer may proceed, but claims against supervisors based on respondeat superior, claims regarding jail commissary prices, and claims against public defenders are dismissed.
-
The court held that a blanket protective order is not warranted based solely on the number of requests for admission, and a motion to compel must be filed in the district where compliance is required.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her § 1983 claim because she did not demonstrate that the defendants' conduct occurred under the "color of law."
-
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim for unlawful detainment under § 1983 against the moving defendants, as they were not personally involved in the decision to detain the plaintiff.
-
The court held that a pretrial detainee's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not a proper avenue for claims that should be raised in the criminal case or a separate civil rights action.
-
The court held that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Lane are dismissed, official capacity claims for damages are dismissed, and the request for termination of an employee is stricken, but claims against Defendants Pope-Jones and Boone regarding excessive force and failure to
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that Sergeant Marckioli is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and even if it were not, the right was not clearly established.
-
The court held that the petitioner's filing, though styled as a civil rights complaint, was in substance a habeas corpus petition. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction and recommended transfer.
-
The court recommended granting the motion to dismiss the failure to protect, Monell, negligent retention, and negligent training claims, but denying the motion to dismiss the failure to intervene claim.
-
A prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation history on a court form, even if claimed to be due to misunderstanding, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process warranting dismissal of the case as malicious.
-
The court held that claims against supervisors and the city based on respondeat superior are dismissed, and claims against officers without direct involvement are also dismissed. A pro se plaintiff has no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil damages action.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for excessive force because the body camera footage contradicted his allegations of being subdued and not resisting, and the force used was reasonable under the circumstances.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint, even when liberally construed, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
Pro se prisoner Jimmie Lee Clark filed a handwritten letter and mandamus petition claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in state court. The federal district court dismissed the filing without prejudice for failure to comply with procedural requirements, directing C
-
The court denied the defendants' motion for certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
-
Once a federal court determined that deputies' use of deadly force was reasonable and necessary to prevent imminent harm, they became immune under Florida Statute § 776.032(1) from any subsequent civil action, and the trial court erred in denying sanctions under § 57.105(1) becau
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was insufficient to proceed because it failed to state a claim under § 1983 and did not comply with Florida's Medical Malpractice Act.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under Section 1983 because it alleged negligence, respondeat superior, de minimis injuries, and insufficient emotional damages without physical injury, and that the named defendants were not proper parties.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint suffers from numerous pleading deficiencies, including shotgun pleading, failure to state a claim, and claims against immune parties, warranting dismissal unless cured by a second amended complaint.
-
The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, thus dismissing the federal claims and declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
-
The court held that claims against Deputy Williams in his official capacity are dismissed as duplicative, but individual capacity claims for viewpoint discrimination and retaliation survive. Prior restraint claim against Deputy is dismissed due to qualified immunity. Monell claim
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-04
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying the plaintiff's motion for sanctions, finding it was untimely and that the magistrate did not commit clear error.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations against Nurse Bader did not sufficiently state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
-
Earl Lee Dorey sued law enforcement officers under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming they used excessive force against him during an arrest in September 2019, when deputies attempted to apprehend him at a residence in Oxford, Florida. The district court granted the defendants' mot
-
The court held that the deputy had probable cause for the arrest based on a modified exhaust violation and resisting arrest, thus granting qualified immunity and dismissing the § 1983 claims.
-
Claims against two officers are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the negligence claim against the remaining officer is dismissed due to sovereign immunity, but the request for punitive damages may proceed.
-
The court recommended denying the petition for a writ of mandamus because the federal mandamus statute does not permit relief against state actors and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 addresses the constitutional issues raised.
-
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for excessive force and that the Sheriff's Office was not a suable entity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish claims for age/disability discrimination and First Amendment retaliation because the adverse employment actions were based on performance issues, not discriminatory or retaliatory motives, and there was no evidence linking the
-
The court held that the deputy did not have arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for obstruction of justice, denying qualified immunity on the false arrest claim.
-
In this civil rights case, pro se plaintiff Johnson sued twenty defendants claiming a coordinated conspiracy to obstruct his underlying civil RICO litigation, bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986. The court denied Johnson's motion to proceed in forma pauperi
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-23
The court held that claims against Judge Campbell are dismissed with prejudice due to absolute judicial immunity, and claims against Crippen and Smith are dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, with leave to amend.
-
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under § 1983 and that her state law claims for negligence and defamation were barred by sovereign immunity and failure to comply with statutory notice requirements.
-
Official-capacity claims against state employees for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as they are equivalent to claims against the state itself, and the State of Florida has not waived its sovereign immunity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the judge and prosecutors are barred by immunity, the claim against the Sheriff's Office is improper, and the claims against the deputies are not clearly alleged, but granted plaintiff an opportunity to amend.
-
A prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation history on a complaint form, even if unintentional, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process and warrants dismissal of the case without prejudice as malicious.
-
The court held that the amended complaint fails to state claims against most defendants due to insufficient identification or lack of factual allegations, but allows the excessive force claim against Lieutenant DeEsposito to proceed.