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 the plaintiff's case is dismissed because he misrepresented his prior litigation history, and alternatively, because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his claim regarding sutures and failed to state a claim regarding a leaking catheter.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not properly follow the prison's grievance procedures, and therefore, his case must be dismissed.
-
The court held that official capacity claims against the Sheriff and officer are dismissed, but the claim against the officer can proceed as an individual capacity claim for deliberate indifference.
-
The court dismissed claims against individual defendants for failure to state a claim but allowed the case to proceed against the corporate defendant for alleged policy failures.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claims.
-
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 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 held that the plaintiff's allegations did not state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment and that the requested relief was beyond the court's power.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment due to unsanitary conditions, and his claims for injunctive relief were moot.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's erroneous citation to the Eighth Amendment for excessive force during an arrest, when the Fourth Amendment applies, does not warrant dismissal on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, even after an opportunity to amend.
-
A prisoner's complaint may be dismissed if their failure to pay the filing fee was within their control and caused by their own spending choices, rather than circumstances beyond their control.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, denying the motion to strike.
-
A prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolousness or failure to state a claim is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
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 prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolousness or failure to state a claim is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-17
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.
-
In May 2019, prison inmate LeSamuel Palmer initiated a Section 1983 civil rights suit against Florida Department of Corrections officers after he was subjected to chemical agent spraying and forced cell extraction at Union Correctional Institution, alleging violations of his Eigh
-
A pro se prisoner cannot join multiple unrelated claims against different defendants in a single action to circumvent the Prison Litigation Reform Act's fee and three-strikes provisions.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to vague and conclusory allegations, and dismissed it without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Sheriff's Office or the named officer.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint was time-barred and therefore subject to dismissal.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim under § 1983 and lacked exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-08-10
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 the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the supervisory defendant for deliberate indifference, even though administrative remedies were exhausted.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-30
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-21
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-21
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
-
An inmate incarcerated in Florida filed a civil rights action alleging that medical personnel at two correctional facilities violated his Eighth Amendment rights and discriminated against him under the ADA and Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide adequate post-surgical care
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-01
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.
-
The court held that the Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-501.301(3)(d), which provides interpreters for languages spoken by 5% or more of the inmate population, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it is rationally related to a legitimate penological interest a
-
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's allegations, if true, may state a plausible claim for a due process violation regarding visitation restrictions, and that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. The court also declined to dismiss claims for injunctive
-
The court dismissed the civil rights complaint without prejudice, requiring an amended complaint with specific allegations, and denied the motion for protection.
-
The court held that a prisoner's failure to disclose prior litigation history on a court form constitutes abuse of the judicial process, warranting dismissal of the current case.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were either barred by Heck v. Humphrey or insufficiently pleaded, warranting dismissal.
-
A prisoner's grievance filed after a contractor ceases providing services can satisfy the PLRA's exhaustion requirement if the claim involves an ongoing violation and the grievance alerts prison officials to the problem, allowing them an opportunity to resolve it.
-
A Florida inmate with hemophilia sued federal prison officials, claiming they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition when they failed to provide emergency doses of Factor 8 medication during bleeding incidents and refused to use his port-a-cath for drug ad
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as his allegations amounted to negligence rather than deliberate indifference and did not establish supervisory liability.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against any defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not allege facts showing an official policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the sheriff's office is not a suable entity and the allegations did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference required for a constitutional violation.
-
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 failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his excessive force claim because his grievances focused on overturning a disciplinary report rather than the alleged use of force itself.
-
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 proper venue for the plaintiff's civil rights complaint was the Middle District of Florida, not the Eastern District of Michigan.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Skigen.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Skigen, and that the remaining claims should be transferred to another district.