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 Florida Department of Corrections is an arm of the state and not a 'person' amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the defendants' motions to dismiss based on illegibility and shotgun pleading were denied, as the complaint was legible and stated plausible claims for relief.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against both defendants.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim, is barred by the statute of limitations and Heck v. Humphrey, and seeks monetary relief against defendants immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
-
The court found the plaintiff's complaint to be a shotgun pleading, making it impossible to conduct a standing analysis or address the merits of the claims.
-
A supervisor cannot be held vicariously liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for subordinates' actions; liability requires personal participation or a causal connection. The plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish such a connection.
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the PLRA, and thus his complaint must be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.
-
A pretrial detainee's pro se civil rights complaint was dismissed because it failed to state a plausible claim for relief against the defendants.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies because his grievances did not address the policy of delaying treatment, but rather focused on diet and vitamin requests.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were not barred by the statute of limitations due to the prison mailbox rule, but the claim against the private attorney was dismissed for failure to state a claim as he was not a state actor. The court also found that the Heck v. Humphr
-
An inmate incarcerated in Florida sought damages against a prison physician under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, claiming the physician failed to reissue specialist-prescribed medical passes following shoulder surgery, refused to pursue
-
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Bill of Costs.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief because he failed to meet the required legal standards for such relief.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies because his grievance was untimely filed according to the FDOC's procedural rules.
-
The court held that claims based on fabricated disciplinary reports are premature if not invalidated, and sanctions imposed (administrative confinement and CARE level reduction) do not implicate constitutional due process concerns.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Sheriff's Office or Detective Mazone, and that property damage claims are not cognizable under § 1983 when a post-deprivation remedy exists.
-
11th Cir.·
2022-06-10
The court held that a 45-day registration requirement for Passover did not substantially burden an inmate's religious exercise under RLUIPA and that electronic posting of the deadline provided adequate notice under the Due Process Clause.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se civil rights complaint was too vague and conclusory to proceed.
-
The court recommended denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
The court held that a federal prisoner cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, and such claims are barred by abstention doctrines.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a "shotgun pleading" and failed to state a claim with sufficient particularity, requiring him to file a second amended complaint.
-
The court dismissed the plaintiff's excessive force claim without prejudice, allowing him to file an amended complaint. Claims against defendants in their official capacities were dismissed, and claims against two defendants in their individual capacities were dismissed for insuf
-
The court held that a prisoner's § 1983 claims must not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and certain defendants are immune or lack capacity to be sued.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against either defendant.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a constitutional violation against the defendant sheriff.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2022-03-31
Expert testimony by Dr. Roy Bedard regarding police practices, the Sheriff's custom of condoning misconduct, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention was excluded as unreliable and unhelpful under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and Daubert. The court found that Bedard's op
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-03-31
McDonough sued Homestead police officers and the City of Homestead for federal and state law violations stemming from his arrests related to disruptive conduct at City Hall meetings in July and September 2016. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Se
-
The court held that the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity for the unreasonable search claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.
-
Pro se plaintiff James R. Leach sued Sarasota County Sheriff deputies for excessive force, First Amendment retaliation, and malicious prosecution arising from his arrest for felony driving with a suspended license in February 2017. The federal district court granted summary judgm
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-03-28
The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was a shotgun pleading that failed to state a claim and must be dismissed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must be denied because it failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1).
-
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim and was a shotgun pleading, but granted leave to amend.
-
Claims against Flagler County and the Sheriff's Office are dismissed without prejudice, but the excessive force claim against Officer Green will proceed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
Prison inmate Jackie Berger sued Florida Department of Corrections officials for retaliation, excessive force, and denial of medical care arising from an alleged beating in Warden Lane's office on October 20, 2020, but the court dismissed his federal civil rights claims because h
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not allege the defendant was a state actor.
-
The court held that the plaintiff, a prisoner with three prior dismissals, cannot proceed in forma pauperis because his alleged injuries do not constitute imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against any of the defendants, either individually or in their official capacities. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.
-
The court granted in part Sheriff Gualtieri's motion for summary judgment, finding that claims against him for battery and false arrest were barred by sovereign immunity because the deputy's actions constituted bad faith, malice, or willful and wanton disregard for the plaintiff'
-
The court held that Plaintiff's individual capacity failure to protect claims against certain officers may proceed, but claims against others and official capacity claims are dismissed.
-
The court held that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding the plaintiff's excessive force claim, precluding summary judgment for the defendants on qualified immunity. The court also found the request for injunctive relief moot due to the plaintiff's transfer.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because his allegations were too vague and lacked specific facts to support his constitutional claims. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
Summary judgment is granted for Defendant Gonzalez because the plaintiff's claims against him are unsupported by evidence, and even if the alleged actions occurred, they do not rise to the level of excessive force or outrageous conduct, and qualified immunity applies.
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation due to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, as his allegations were conclusory and lacked specific facts.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-01-12
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish municipal liability under § 1983 because the allegations regarding the City Manager's final policymaking authority were conclusory and unsupported by facts, and the City Manager's decisions were subject to review by the City C
-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-12-28
The court held that a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed if the claim is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if the petitioner requests conversion.
-
A prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolousness, malice, or failure to state a claim is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead his claims and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting him leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims against Corizon were not time-barred due to the continuing violation doctrine, and Centurion's motion to dismiss based on the three-strikes rule was denied. The court will proceed to make specific findings on the exhaustion of administra