42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action

943 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,362 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Murray v. W. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd.
  472 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-19 ·cited 20×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Claim
  The court held that the Louisiana public school disciplinary statutes, school rules, and psychological testing practices did not violate the students' constitutional rights.
• Keeton v. Procunier
  468 F.2d 810· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the Adult Authority is immune from damages claims, a prisoner's claim of constitutional rights interference by unidentified state officials warrants further proceedings and opportunity to amend.
• Ortiz v. LaVALLEE
  442 F.2d 912· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-25 ·cited 20×·via Civil Rights Act Of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
  The court held that New York's tolling statute for imprisoned persons applies even if they have legal capacity to sue, thus the inmate's civil rights claim was not time-barred.
• Johnson v. Mueller
  415 F.2d 354· 4th Cir.· 1969-08-29 ·cited 20×·via Civil Rights Act Of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaints for lack of jurisdiction without considering whether they stated a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
• Chakra 5 v. City of Miami Beach
  254 So. 3d 1056· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-08-22 ·cited 19×
  Claims based on injuries occurring before May 20, 2009, are time-barred under Florida's four-year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions, and the continuing tort doctrine does not apply because the complaint alleges discrete acts rather than a single continuing wrong. Substant
• Reed v. Sharon Mims & the AeroThrust Corp. of Miami
  711 So. 2d 169· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-05-13 ·cited 19×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Claim
  An indigent prisoner's civil complaint was dismissed under Florida's 1996 anti-frivolous lawsuit statute (§ 57.085). The court reversed dismissal of the fraud count against one defendant, allowing amendment, while affirming dismissal of defamation and civil rights claims.
• Walker v. A.L. Lockhart
  726 F.2d 1238· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-18 ·cited 19×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Claim
  The court, sitting en banc, granted a petition for recall of mandate and remanded the case to the district court to take evidence on new factual issues. These issues include testimony from Russell Kumpe and his former wife regarding Kumpe's alleged firing of a gun, and the admiss
• Weaver v. Jago
  675 F.2d 116· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-09 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim of religious objection to a hair length regulation cannot be summarily dismissed and requires a balancing of the prisoner's First Amendment rights against the state's asserted security interests.
• Humble v. Foreman
  563 F.2d 780· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights action was barred by judicial and prosecutorial immunity and the statute of limitations.
• Miller v. Carson
  563 F.2d 757· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 19×·via Civil Rights Act Of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
  The court held that the district court properly exercised pendent jurisdiction over state law claims concerning jail conditions, and that the order continuing an injunction was appealable.
• Anderson v. Haas
  341 F.2d 497· 3d Cir.· 1965-02-12 ·cited 19×·via Civil Rights Act Of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
  The court held that the legality of an arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is determined by federal constitutional standards, not state law, and that the officers had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.
• Williams v. Polk Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  192 F. Supp. 3d 1353· M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-20 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Complaint (Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
  A governmental entity is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based solely on respondeat superior; liability requires proof of an official policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation.
• Ruiz v. Officer Jennifer Wing
  991 F.3d 1130· 11th Cir.· 2021-03-12 ·cited 18×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)
  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 allowed by rule. However, the court affirmed the judgment as none of the appellant's claims had merit.
• Alvarez v. Attorney Gen. FOR the State of Fla.
  679 F.3d 1257· 11th Cir.· 2012-05-08 ·cited 18×
  Carl Robert Alvarez, convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and aggravated child abuse, appealed a district court dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights action challenging Florida's denial of his petition for postconviction DNA testing. The Eleventh Circuit affir
• Gowan v. BAY Cnty.
  744 So. 2d 1136· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-10-27 ·cited 18×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violations
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant's claims against CCA with prejudice, as the allegations, though inartfully pleaded, were sufficient to withstand dismissal at this stage.
• Johnson v. Moore
  948 F.2d 517· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that claims for injunctive relief were moot due to inmate transfer, and claims for damages were barred by qualified immunity or lacked merit. Summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed.
• Mariam Long v. Norris
  929 F.2d 1111· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the wardens are entitled to qualified immunity regarding the Fourth and First Amendment claims, but not the Fourteenth Amendment claim concerning the inmates' liberty interest in visitation.
• D.T. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. NO. 16 OF Pawnee Cnty.
  894 F.2d 1176· 10th Cir.· 1990-01-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury's finding of deliberate indifference and causation was supported by sufficient evidence, allowing the case to proceed.
• Geitz v. Lindsey
  893 F.2d 148· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 18×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting limited evidence of the plaintiff's pending charges and prior convictions to show the defendants' state of mind and the reasonableness of their actions.
• Erwin v. Cnty. OF Manitowoc
  872 F.2d 1292· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 18×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violations
  The court held that the confusing jury verdict and inconsistent findings necessitated a new trial for all parties.
• Byron v. Clay
  867 F.2d 1049· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 18×
  The First Amendment does not protect a 'ghost employee' from being fired for political reasons, especially when reinstatement would violate state criminal law and mock the amendment's purpose.
• Common v. Investigator Willie J. Williams and Phillip T. Hardiman
  859 F.2d 467· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment because she did not complete her probationary period under Illinois law, and thus, her procedural due process claim failed.
• Rust v. Grammer
  858 F.2d 411· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the prison lockdown was a legitimate security measure, not a disciplinary action, and therefore did not violate state-created liberty interests or the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
• Nikki Lieberman v. Reisman
  857 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 18×
  Unfavorable action against a public employee based on political affiliation, even if not a discharge, can give rise to a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Hensley v. Wilson
  850 F.2d 269· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 18×
  Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages claims because the law regarding independent assessment of confidential informant reliability was not clearly established at the time of the disciplinary hearings. However, injunctive relief is appropriate where dis
• Coleman v. Smith
  814 F.2d 1142· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 18×
  The court holds that the Village of Robbins is not liable for acts of its officials that are clearly outside the scope of their employment, distinguishing this case from prior precedent.
• Cunningham v. The City OF McKEESPORT
  807 F.2d 49· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-12 ·cited 18×
  The court reinstated its prior order reversing the district court's judgment, finding that the Supreme Court's opinion in City of Riverside v. Rivera did not alter the prior panel's reasoning regarding attorney's fees.
• Cannon v. Loyola Univ. OF Chicago
  784 F.2d 777· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Act Of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
  The court held that prior dismissals of the plaintiff's suits operated as res judicata, barring the current action against all defendant medical schools.
• Bunyan v. Camacho
  770 F.2d 773· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-03 ·cited 18×
  A Guam statute granting retroactive retirement credit only to residents who began college before moving to Guam violates the Equal Protection Clause because the distinction between residents is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
• Bailey v. Faulkner
  765 F.2d 102· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-19 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Suit Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights suit was barred by the statute of limitations, and affirmed the dismissal on alternative grounds of the defendant's lack of personal liability.
• Mazanec v. N. Judson-San Pierre Sch. Corp.
  763 F.2d 845· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Act Of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
  The court should affirm the district court's decision to abstain from hearing the case.
• Mark v. Caldwell
  754 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 18×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)
  The court held that the alleged slapping, even if true, did not rise to the level of severe injury required for a § 1983 excessive force claim.
• Fraser v. Bethel Sch. Dist. NO. 403
  755 F.2d 1356· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that school authorities have the power to discipline students for indecent speech, even if it does not meet the 'substantial disruption' standard from Tinker v. Des Moines, because schools are unique environments with special needs.
• Emerson Emory v. Tex. State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  748 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-17 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Suit Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The Eleventh Amendment bars relief against the state board and officials for damages payable from state coffers, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Varela v. Jones
  746 F.2d 1413· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Suit Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to recuse himself, did not err in excluding evidence of a supervisor's alleged misconduct, and did not err in its jury instructions regarding good faith defenses and the use of force.
• Ardith McPherson v. Rankin
  736 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 18×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights)
  Summary judgment was inappropriate because substantial issues of material fact exist regarding the context and intent of the plaintiff's statement, which are crucial for determining First Amendment protection.
• Sequoia Books, Inc. v. McDONALD
  725 F.2d 1091· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Suit Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the warrant's description of materials was sufficiently particular to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, and abstention was not required.
• Darron K. Campbell v. White
  721 F.2d 644· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-01 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Suit Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  A notice of appeal received more than 30 days after judgment is untimely and cannot be considered a motion for an extension of time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• Michael and Jane Timms v. Metro. Sch. Dist. OF Wabash Cnty.
  722 F.2d 1310· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Act Of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims under the EAHCA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court also affirmed the dismissal of other claims.
• Chesny v. Marek
  720 F.2d 474· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Suit Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  A Rule 68 offer that includes attorney's fees is valid, and rejection of such an offer does not preclude a plaintiff from recovering attorney's fees for work done after the offer was made, as doing so would abridge the substantive right to fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Alexander v. Ware
  714 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 18×
  A prisoner's civil rights complaint challenging a prison's disciplinary system for procedural due process violations is not barred by the habeas corpus exclusivity rule, even if it impacts good time credit.
• Baer v. The City OF Wauwatosa
  716 F.2d 1117· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 18×·via Civil Rights Suit Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the plaintiff did not possess a constitutionally cognizable property interest in operating an unlicensed business or a license issued in error.
• Edwards H. Metcalf v. Borba
  681 F.2d 1183· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 18×
  A postjudgment request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is not subject to the ten-day time limit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or local rules governing routine costs.
• Lennie Crosby v. Bowling
  683 F.2d 1068· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, that no special circumstances rendered the award unjust, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in the amount awarded.
• Alden Werch v. City OF Berlin
  673 F.2d 192· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the section 1983 suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the availability of adequate state remedies and properly awarded attorney's fees for a frivolous action.
• Harbulak v. Cnty. OF Suffolk
  654 F.2d 194· 2d Cir.· 1981-07-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees to the prevailing defendant because the civil rights action brought was frivolous and without foundation.
• Wright v. Cuyler
  624 F.2d 455· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 18×
  Denial of admission to a home furlough program is a condition of confinement, not a challenge to the duration of imprisonment, and can be pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without exhausting state remedies.
• Crumley v. Snead
  620 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a sheriff's delivery of a prisoner to another state while a habeas corpus petition challenging extradition was pending violates federal law and gives rise to a civil rights action.
• Cannon v. Breed
  565 F.2d 1096· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-06 ·cited 18×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Claim
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the dismissal of an alleged class action where the individual claim of the class representative had become moot and the class had not been properly certified by the district court.
• Drone v. Hutto
  565 F.2d 543· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a prisoner who demanded a jury trial in his complaint, asserting both legal and equitable claims, was entitled to a jury trial on the legal issues, and the trial court erred in denying this right based on a local rule suggestion.