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
-
A federal court lacks jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when the petitioner is not in the custody of the respondent authority, and an immigration detainer alone does not satisfy this requirement.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Jones. The court also found that the plaintiff's allegations regarding deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Corizon Health Provider d
-
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity for excessive force and battery claims, and the negligence claim was impermissible under Florida law.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for false imprisonment or due process violations against the defendants, and that prisoners have no constitutionally protected liberty interest in grievance procedures.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-07
The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint alleging wrongful detention and mishandling of grievances fails to state a claim and is dismissed, but with leave to amend.
-
Quincy Williams, an inmate, sued corrections officers and Florida Department of Corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and failure to protect after officers sprayed him with chemical agents and used force against him on June 1, 2016, allegedly in retalia
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, requiring dismissal of his civil rights complaint.
-
The court held that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity on the civil rights claims because the plaintiff failed to show they were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm, and that the negligence claims could proceed if timely notice requirements were m
-
The court held that a prisoner's complaint seeking a name change from a prison warden fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
-
The court accepted the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal, effectively dismissing the case without prejudice.
-
The court held that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is subject to dismissal under the PLRA.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-20
The court held that a prisoner cannot bring a federal civil action for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury, and that claims against a state official in her official capacity require showing a policy or custom caused the injury.
-
The court held that a prisoner's failure to disclose prior lawsuits on a civil rights complaint form, under penalty of perjury, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process warranting dismissal.
-
The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the excessive force claim, precluding summary judgment, and that officers are not entitled to qualified immunity based on the plaintiff's version of events. Summary judgment was granted for the failure to interve
-
The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's serious medical needs.
-
A judge is absolutely immune from suit for actions taken within her judicial capacity, and a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of confinement must seek habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not allege facts showing a deprivation of a constitutional right or deliberate indifference by the defendants.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint stated plausible claims for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment and that his alleged injuries met the physical injury requirement for damages under the PLRA, denying the motion to dismiss.
-
Prison inmate Jean-Denis sued corrections sergeant Tate and physician Aviles under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Tate deprived him of meals and water while on self-harm observation status at a Florida prison and that Aviles denied him proper medical treatment for resulting inju
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint sufficiently pleaded claims for excessive force and supervisory liability, meeting federal pleading standards.
-
Wilbert R. Hurst, an inmate, sued several Florida Department of Corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his due process rights, First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and intentional infliction of emot
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-17
Bryan Turner, a retired deputy sheriff who announced his intention to run for sheriff of Nassau County, sued Sheriff Mike Williams and the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office alleging First Amendment retaliation for his arrest on evidence tampering charges, and similarly sued Sheriff B
-
The court held that the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office is not a suable entity and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for an unconstitutional traffic stop, but his excessive force claim against the officers was plausible and could proceed.
-
The court held that the defendants' motion to revoke the plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and dismiss the case under the PLRA's 'three strikes' provision must be denied.
-
A pro se plaintiff's civil rights complaint must contain factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that claims against deputies were dismissed as shotgun pleading, certain claims against the Sheriff were dismissed for lack of private right of action or capacity, but the Section 1983 claim against the Sheriff for a custom of excessive force could proceed.
-
The court held that a pro se inmate's civil rights complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for abuse of the judicial process and failure to state a claim, as the named defendant was not a 'person' under § 1983 and the inmate failed to disclose prior lawsuits.
-
Former inmate Orvel Lloyd brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that sheriff's deputies violated his Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop, search, and arrest, and that the sheriff was liable for their conduct. The federal district court granted su
-
The court held that the inmate's motion for reconsideration was denied because the prior dismissal under the "three-strikes" rule was not overly broad and did not constitute manifest error.
-
A prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim, who is not under imminent danger, must pay the filing fee upfront and is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his lawsuit, requiring dismissal.
-
Christopher Dyal, an inmate, sued two correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming they violated his constitutional rights by exposing him to toxic paint fumes without proper safety measures, retaliating against him for filing grievances through threats and transfer, an
-
The court held that the Second Amended Complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and was dismissed without prejudice, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to file a Third Amended Complaint.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's excessive force claims are not barred by Heck, but claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot, and monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and that he had properly exhausted administrative remedies, thus denying the defendants' motions to dismiss.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his excessive force claims and failed to state a claim for relief on any of his asserted constitutional violations.
-
The court held that the medical facility is not a legal entity amenable to suit, thus the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
The court held that probable cause existed for the arrest, thus dismissing false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, but denied dismissal for excessive force claims due to allegations of unreasonable force against an elderly individual. The court also found that an adjudicat
-
The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's alleged injuries were de minimis as a matter of law, thus denying their motion for partial summary judgment.
-
The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage for the false arrest claim, and the Sheriff was not entitled to dismissal of the § 1983 municipal liability, battery, and false arrest claims.
-
The Court held that the plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because she has had three prior actions dismissed and is not under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment and failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies.
-
The court held that the prisoner's complaint challenging strip searches by officers of the opposite sex fails to state a constitutional claim and is dismissed as frivolous.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of a slip and fall and subsequent medical treatment did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation for cruel and unusual punishment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-21
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it lacked sufficient factual allegations to demonstrate a violation of constitutional rights.
-
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not allege sufficient facts to show a deprivation of constitutional rights by the challenged FCCC policy.
-
The court held that discovery is stayed pending the outcome of the interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity.
-
The court held that de minimis physical injuries, as alleged by the plaintiff, are insufficient to support a claim for mental anguish or punitive damages under the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations regarding the unavailability of administrative remedies precluded dismissal at the first step of the exhaustion analysis.