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 attorneys' fees should not be awarded to the prevailing defendant because the plaintiffs' claims, though ultimately unsuccessful, were not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, and thus the complaint was properly dismissed under the PLRA.
-
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 the plaintiff inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies because his self-serving and unsupported claims of destroyed grievances lacked credibility.
-
Prison inmate Juan Barriera sued Florida Department of Corrections officials under the Eighth Amendment for failing to protect him from a severe attack by a gang-affiliated cellmate at Hamilton Correctional Institution, despite officials' knowledge of prior gang-related violence
-
The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden on summary judgment by not demonstrating an absence of evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-02
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 held that a pro se prisoner's complaint alleging the existence of 'mind reading machines' used by a jail is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies because his attempts did not comply with the FDOC's required grievance procedures, and his claims were not excused by the unavailability of remedies.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-16
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
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments and that the Department of Health is not a suable 'person' under § 1983.
-
A prisoner who has had three or more prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
The court held that the action must be dismissed because the plaintiff's successor or representative failed to move for substitution within 90 days after the suggestion of death was served.
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate's pro se civil rights complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was therefore dismissed.
-
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 held that the plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, as the defendant provided treatment and sought consultations, and a mere disagreement with the chosen course of treatment does not rise to a constitutional violation.
-
The Court held that abstention under the Younger doctrine is warranted, requiring a stay of the federal proceedings.
-
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 the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving the plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies.
-
The court held that a federal prisoner's civil rights action against federal officials must be brought under Bivens, not § 1983, and that such claims are subject to the PLRA's exhaustion requirement.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for denial of access to the courts and that his claim was barred by the PLRA due to lack of physical injury.
-
A negligent or intentional deprivation of personal property does not constitute a due process violation if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available under state law.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-04
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.
-
Jesse Moody, an inmate at a Florida jail, sued jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging they violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to unlawful conditions of confinement including overcrowding, unsanitary facilities, poor air circulation, pest infestation, and
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint against a judge is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim and for seeking relief from an immune defendant.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Corizon's alleged policy or custom of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and thus summary judgment for Corizon was appropriate.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim because it lacked sufficient factual allegations to plausibly infer that the challenged policy amounted to unconstitutional punishment.
-
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.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were not properly exhausted because he did not pursue all available administrative remedies before filing suit.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to conclusory allegations lacking factual support.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state plausible claims against certain defendants because the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support the allegations of excessive force.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-08
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 a successive habeas corpus petition filed without authorization from the court of appeals must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and dismissed the case without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims against judges and prosecutors were barred by absolute immunity and that the malicious prosecution claim was premature. The court also abstained from interfering with the ongoing state criminal proceedings.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that his motion for preliminary injunction was also deficient.
-
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 conclusory allegations lacking specific facts.
-
The court held that the magistrate judge's recommendation to transfer the case to the Northern District of Florida for improper venue was not clearly erroneous and should be adopted.
-
The court accepted and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to transfer the case.
-
A prisoner cannot recover for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act, and supervisory officials are not liable for subordinates' acts without personal participation or a causal connection.
-
The court held that a prisoner subject to the 'three-strikes' rule must pay the filing fee unless they allege imminent danger of serious physical injury, which the plaintiff failed to do.
-
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.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a plausible claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983 because the alleged changes to the facility's operations were reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective.
-
The court held that plaintiff failed to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Honour due to lack of alleged personal involvement or causal connection. The court found sufficient allegations against Defendant Reddish to proceed.
-
A public defender does not act under color of state law for § 1983 claims, and state entities are not liable under respondeat superior or the Eleventh Amendment.
-
A prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, evident on the face of the complaint, requires dismissal of the action.
-
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 State of Florida is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' claims against the State of Florida under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.