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 held that the plaintiff's claims under § 1983 were precluded by the ADA's remedial framework, and dismissed ADA claims for failure to state a claim, but granted leave to amend due to plaintiff's pro se status.
-
The court held that a pretrial detainee's constitutional right of access to courts is satisfied if he is offered legal counsel and voluntarily proceeds pro se, even if he claims a lack of legal supplies.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights.
-
The court recommended granting the plaintiff's petition to approve the attorney ad litem report and enter an order approving the parties' proposed settlement agreement.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, denying the motion to strike.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-10-04
The court recommends dismissal of the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute the case and comply with two court orders.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-09-29
The court recommended dismissal of the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute the case, comply with court orders, and update his address.
-
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's § 1983 claims for unlawful stop, arrest, and search.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-09-22
The court recommended dismissal of the action because the plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis after multiple opportunities and warnings.
-
A police officer's use of force claim under the Fourth Amendment was dismissed as barred by qualified immunity, where the officer's conduct—including pointing a firearm, using physical contact, and deploying a taser against a non-compliant suspect—was not clearly established as u
-
A judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for actions taken within their judicial capacity, even if those actions are alleged to be erroneous or in excess of jurisdiction, provided they are not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that his claims, even if considered on the merits, were insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference or constitutional violations.
-
The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that his speech involved a matter of public concern, but deferred the Pickering balancing test and qualified immunity determination to summary judgment, thus denying dismissal of the claim against the individual defendant. Ho
-
The court held that it lacked the authority to grant the plaintiff's requested relief of formally charging the defendant with obstruction of justice and conspiracy, as such authority rests with the executive branch.
-
The court held that the case should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
-
The court held that the case should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
-
The court held that summary judgment was premature due to the need for discovery, but dismissed claims against John Doe defendants and official capacity claims against other defendants. It also found that officers Smith and Mazuryk were entitled to qualified immunity on the failu
-
The court held that the plaintiff's financial situation demonstrates an ability to pay the filing fee, thus denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
A visually impaired inmate filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that a correctional sergeant used excessive force by spraying chemical agent directly into his surgically repaired eyes despite his nonresistance, and that the warden was deliberately indiffere
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the City for failure to train, supervise, or hire, and that the claim for punitive damages against the officer was conclusory and should be struck.
-
The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence of similarly situated comparators and the rational basis for the City's enforcement actions.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983 because the alleged retaliatory conduct would not deter a person of ordinary firmness and the temporal proximity was too attenuated to infer a causal connection.
-
The court held that the arrest report could not be considered on a motion to dismiss because it was not attached to the complaint and its contents were disputed. The court also found that the plaintiff's allegations, if true, stated a claim for excessive force against Officer Gon
-
The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged supervisory liability against Sheriff Roberts and denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage, but granted in part the motion to strike punitive damages and attorney's fees claims.
-
The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a policy or custom of deliberate indifference to medical needs, and therefore denied the sheriff's motion to dismiss on those grounds, deferring the issue of causation.
-
A state legislator blocked a private citizen from his official social media accounts in response to criticism of his legislative votes, and the court held that while the official capacity claim failed, the individual capacity First Amendment claim proceeded to trial because a fac
-
The District Court granted the defendant's motion to strike or dismiss the plaintiff's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. The court held that expungement of arrest records is not cognizable through a Section 1983 action against an individual officer, as Florida law l
-
The court held that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies for the March 2018 incident, but properly exhausted for the November 2017 and May 2018 incidents, and that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to claims against defendants in their official capacitie
-
The court adopted in part and rejected in part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the plaintiff's amended complaint as a shotgun pleading and several of his claims.
-
Plaintiff's false arrest claim (Count I) was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege the essential elements of a false arrest claim under Florida law, including that the arrest was unreasonable and not warranted by the circumstances, and because Plaintiff did not allege that
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-12
A party may file a single, combined brief for responding to opposing summary judgment motions and presenting their own cross-motion for summary judgment, as the substantive standard for evaluating summary judgment is the same for all parties.
-
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding the county's curfew order was not preempted by state law, not an ultra vires act, and that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege municipal liability for Fourth Amendment violations.
-
The court held that while allegations against some nurses were insufficient, claims against Centurion Doctors, Nurses Morton and Mahoney, and Centurion Administrators, as well as Centurion's policies, could plausibly support a claim for deliberate indifference.
-
A pro se motion for a new trial, even if stricken as unauthorized, tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal if filed within the time permitted by rule. The court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
-
The court granted summary judgment for the deputies on the Section 1983 excessive force claims, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity.
-
The court held that denying protestors access to courthouse restrooms does not violate the First, Fourth, or Thirteenth Amendments, as courthouses are nonpublic forums and restroom access is restricted to those with court business.
-
The court held that the expert's testimony should be excluded because his supplemental affidavit was untimely and prejudicial, and his methodology for analyzing shell casings and the victim's actions was unreliable and would not assist the trier of fact.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se civil rights complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to insufficient pleading regarding defendants and constitutional violations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-29
The court held that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was properly adopted, and the Amended Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
-
The court held that a civilly committed individual's claim that a medical professional denied him medical marijuana for glaucoma fails to state a constitutional claim, as it does not allege a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-10-12
Peter Vigue, a homeless person, challenged the constitutionality of two Florida statutes that prohibited charitable solicitation on public roadways without a permit, alleging violations of his First Amendment right to free speech. The court ruled that Florida Statutes § 316.2045
-
A pro se inmate's petition challenging prison conditions, even if styled as a habeas corpus petition, should be construed as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under Section 1983 and that the state law negligence claim was properly dismissed for failure to comply with statutory pre-suit notice requirements.
-
The court held that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on claims of false arrest and excessive force, requiring these issues to proceed to trial.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-09-03
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, finding the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not demonstrate deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
-
The court denied the City of Venice's motion to dismiss Count I, finding the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a municipal custom of racial discrimination and causation.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a municipal policy or custom for his excessive force and inadequate medical treatment claims, and also failed to properly serve one defendant, leading to dismissal of federal claims and remand of the state law claim.
-
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity for excessive force and battery claims, and the negligence claim was impermissible under Florida law.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-31
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint without prejudice.
-
Summary judgment is granted for the defendants because the plaintiff's evidence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference under controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent.