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
-
The court held that a prisoner's claim of being placed on property restriction does not state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's civil rights complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, as claims were barred by Younger abstention, judicial immunity, or lacked an adequate legal basis.
-
The Court held that a civil rights complaint must be dismissed without prejudice if the defendants are not identified by name, and a jail is not a suable entity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendants, a private social media company and its owner, are not state actors.
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because his allegations of missing food, threats, and supervisory inaction did not rise to the level of constitutional violations.
-
The court held that a claim against Defendant Jackson is dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but the claim for punitive damages against Defendant Lizenbee is not statutorily barred.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and thus dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The court deferred ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, directing the plaintiff to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint to clarify the date of the alleged Fourth Amendment violation.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for denial of access to the courts, equal protection, or for negligence, and thus dismissed the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-10-30
The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim against the Secretary of Corrections and denied the plaintiff's motions for transfer, appointment of counsel, and preservation of evidence.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not timely filing appeals for his formal grievances, thus requiring dismissal of his complaint.
-
The court denied defendants' motion for leave to amend their answers and affirmative defenses because they failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of being denied a single meal and receiving a verbal threat do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overruling the plaintiff's objections, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice, and dismissing the complaint with leave to amend.
-
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim against the Sheriff and the towing company because it lacked sufficient factual allegations of constitutional deprivation under color of state law.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was due to be dismissed without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the remaining defendants and that claims against one defendant were dismissed for improper venue.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint must be dismissed because it constitutes a shotgun pleading, is barred by the Younger doctrine, and the defendants are entitled to immunity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint against Google must be dismissed because it is barred by the statute of limitations, is frivolous, and fails to state a claim.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies because his grievances were untimely or addressed issues already grieved, thus his claims are dismissed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations sufficiently stated a claim for excessive force and battery, and that the deputy may not be entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. However, the court found that the deputy had arguable probable cause for an investigatory dete
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-21
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state plausible claims for relief under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and dismissed the complaint.
-
The court held that the pro se plaintiff stated a prima facie deliberate indifference claim against some defendants but dismissed the complaint without prejudice due to procedural defects, granting leave to amend.
-
The court held that while the plaintiff stated a prima facie deliberate indifference claim against some defendants, the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice due to procedural defects, with leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies because he did not file an informal grievance as required by Florida's prison grievance procedure.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction was moot because he had been transferred to a different facility, and therefore denied the motion and the related motion to shorten discovery deadlines.
-
A Florida federal court granted summary judgment in favor of four FDOC medical defendants in an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference case, finding that the plaintiff-inmate failed to establish that the defendants' care for his shoulder injuries constituted conscious-shocking
-
The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint was a shotgun pleading, failed to state claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and his application to proceed in forma pauperis was legally insufficient.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because probation violation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions and did not terminate in his favor. Additionally, civilian defendants are not state actors an
-
Lester Eugene Fisher, an incarcerated inmate, sued three correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force, racist language, denying him food, and leaving him handcuffed among unrestrained inmates during a Febr
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-18
The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint alleging exposure to allergens, while potentially stating a claim for nominal damages or injunctive relief, must be dismissed without prejudice for failing to comply with pleading standards and for seeking barred compensatory dama
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-17
The court held that a plaintiff's complaint seeking a federal declaration of a state marriage's validity and enjoining state officials from requiring repudiation of that marriage as part of a treatment plan fails to state a claim.
-
The court held that the defendant met his burden of proving the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for violations of his Fourth Amendment rights because the officers had probable cause for the traffic stop, search, and arrest, and the stop was not unreasonably prolonged.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and his motions for injunctive relief were denied.
-
The court held that official capacity claims for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, supervisory and corporate defendants are not liable absent personal involvement or unconstitutional policy, and the Larkin defendants' actions were not deliberately indifferent. Claims
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se civil rights complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim against Centurion and that the FDOC Defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims in their official capacities.
-
The court held that claims against the Department of Corrections and Secretary Dixon were dismissed for failure to state a claim, but the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Officer Baker would proceed.
-
Nicole DeSimone, a former inmate at Flagler County Jail, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida state law alleging that correctional officer Bradley Gilyard sexually assaulted her in January 2017 due to systemic failures in security and supervision. The
-
A judge acting within their judicial capacity is entitled to absolute immunity from civil suits for damages unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the officers' use of force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, entitling them to qualified immunity and statutory immunity.
-
Arthur Scott sued Cape Coral Police Department officers for excessive force and other claims arising from their March 31, 2019 response to a domestic violence call, during which Officer Vazquez tackled him and he suffered a fractured and dislocated hip. The court granted summary
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
-
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim because it impermissibly joined unrelated claims and lacked sufficient factual detail to support the excessive force allegations.
-
The court held that a pretrial detainee's claim arising from transportation in a vehicle without seatbelts does not, without more, state a constitutional violation for failure to allege a substantial risk of serious harm.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not allege lack of probable cause for arrests or favorable termination of criminal proceedings, and certain defendants were immune from suit.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies because he did not comply with the FDOC's deadlines for filing grievances and appeals.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because probation violation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions and did not terminate in his favor, and civilian defendants are not state actors, while prose
-
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint was premature because success on his claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the disciplinary punishment, and alternatively, that he failed to state a claim because he was not deprived of a protected liberty inter