42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Deliberate Indifference To Serious Medical Needs

72 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc.
  769 F.2d 700· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 257×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against the medical defendants and that dismissal of claims against the non-medical defendants based solely on respondeat superior was improper, reversing the distri
• Meade v. Grubbs
  841 F.2d 1512· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case for violation of a local rule and that the plaintiff's allegations sufficiently stated a claim for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, state officials sued in their official capacitie
• Partridge v. TWO Unknown Police Officers OF the City OF Houston
  791 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-13 ·cited 69×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion incorrectly interprets precedent and collapses the distinction between negligence and wanton conduct.
• Willa Dean Howell v. Evans
  922 F.2d 712· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-28 ·cited 55×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity even when factual disputes exist, and that the superintendent's failure to act on known medical deficiencies could constitute deliberate indifference, but the attending physician's actions did not
• Joseph v. Brierton
  739 F.2d 1244· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-23 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court erred by not granting a mistrial or informing the jury of indemnification after the defense counsel's prejudicial remarks, and by giving an improper good faith immunity instruction.
• Bonny Edward Taylor v. Hughes
  920 F.3d 729· 11th Cir.· 2019-04-03 ·cited 41×
  The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether the jail guards were deliberately indifferent to the detainee's serious medical needs, precluding summary judgment.
• Cabrales v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  864 F.2d 1454· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-28 ·cited 27×
  The court affirmed the denial of the JNOV motion, the denial of summary judgment, and the jury verdict, finding that the defendants waived sufficiency of evidence arguments by failing to move for a directed verdict. The court also affirmed the attorneys' fees award, finding no ab
• Broughton v. Cutter Labs.
  622 F.2d 458· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the prisoner's complaint, as currently stated, did not provide enough information to determine if it alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and thus should be remanded for an opportunity to amend.
• Miltier v. Beorn
  896 F.2d 848· 4th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the treating physicians and nurses, as a reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for supervisory defendants, finding insufficient evidence of the
• Lewis v. Parish OF Terrebonne
  894 F.2d 142· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's finding of deliberate indifference was supported by evidence, the punitive damage award was valid, and qualified immunity did not apply. However, the case was remanded for determination of pre-death compensatory damages.
• McGUCKIN v. Dr. Smith
  974 F.2d 1050· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-24 ·cited 8×
  The court holds that jurisdiction is proper and summary judgment for two doctors was appropriate, but the dismissal of claims against other parties should have allowed an opportunity to amend.
• Crooks v. Crispus C. NIX
  872 F.2d 800· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prisoner's pro se complaint alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, particularly regarding pain medication, must be read liberally and can overcome summary judgment if a factual dispute exists. Contracting medical care does not absolve the
• Murphy v. Lane
  833 F.2d 106· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claim that the inmate's transfer was retaliatory, but did not err in dismissing the claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs and violations of state law.
• Hall v. Lieutenant John Ashley
  607 F.2d 789· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury verdict and instructions were so confusing and inconsistent that the issue of prevailing party status for attorney fees could not be decided, requiring a new trial.
• Marsh v. Butler Cnty.
  225 F.3d 1243· 11th Cir.· 2000-09-07 ·cited 6×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to state claims against Butler County, the Butler County Commission, and Sheriff Diane Harris. The court held that the district court erred in d
• Moreland v. Wharton
  899 F.2d 1168· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-01 ·cited 6×
  A district court abuses its discretion by dismissing a prisoner's pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if the complaint states a constitutional claim with an arguable basis in law and fact, without conducting a sufficient inquiry.
• Crabtree v. Collins
  900 F.2d 79· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 5×
  A party is not considered a "prevailing party" under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, if they did not obtain any relief on the merits of their claims.
• Ritchie v. Wickstrom
  938 F.2d 689· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the suit against the individual defendants, the claims failed on the merits because the alleged misconduct amounted to negligence, not a constitutional violation, and the policymaker defendant was not responsible for th
• Smith v. Galley
  919 F.2d 893· 4th Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an informal appellate brief, even if filed timely and evincing intent to appeal, cannot substitute for a proper notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c).
• Evans v. Dugger
  908 F.2d 801· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and judgment for the defendants, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.
• Engelleiter v. Brevard Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  290 F. Supp. 2d 1300· M.D. Fla.· 2003-07-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted because the undisputed facts did not demonstrate deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's serious medical needs, nor did they establish a policy or custom of deliberate indifference.
• Young v. Armontrout
  795 F.2d 55· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the allegations could state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
• Jamael M. Hubbard v. Naphcare Med. Servs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-13
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs because the allegations amounted to a difference in medical opinion, not a constitutional violation.
• Racheal Gantt v. Deputy Everett
  11th Cir.· 2025-12-18
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Deputy Everett is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate Racheal Gantt's constitutional rights by demonstrating deliberate indifference to a strong likelihood of suicide.
• Daniels v. Sheriff of Hendry Cnty. Jail
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-10
  The court held that the plaintiff's fourth identical complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a claim and for being barred by res judicata.
• Smothers v. Childers
  11th Cir.· 2025-11-20
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the county had a policy that violated the decedent's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care.
• Castro v. Providers
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
• Johnson v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-17
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs because it lacked sufficient factual allegations regarding the seriousness of the medical need and the defendants' subjective awareness of risk.
• Virtue v. Yes Care LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-08
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, as the physician exercised medical judgment and delays were for medical reasons, and thus summary judgment for the defendants was granted.
• Heard v. Hughes
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-20
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against Officer Hughes for deliberate indifference could proceed, but claims against Nurse Opsahi and official capacity claims were dismissed.
• Akins v. Dixon
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-23
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to cruel and unsafe conditions under the Eighth Amendment.
• Francis v. Wellpath
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-30
  The court held that the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, warranting dismissal with prejudice.
• Akins v. Panye
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-23
  A prisoner's complaint alleging deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm from a cellmate, or retaliation for filing grievances, fails to state a constitutional claim if it lacks specific factual allegations of threat or harm, and a mere denial of grievances d
• Jones v. West Unit R.M.C. Nurse
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-11
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of a nurse failing to document a chipped tooth and refer him to dental care, without more, do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference required for an Eighth Amendment claim.
• Brown v. Does
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-24
  The court held that the plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County and Sheriff, and thus, the motions to dismiss were granted.
• White v. Murphy
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-03
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations against Nurse Bader did not sufficiently state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
• Moretto v. Solorzano
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-23
  The court held that a prisoner's claims of deliberate indifference and failure to train regarding medical treatment and dietary restrictions failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, and claims related to medication were time-barred.
• Williams v. The GEO Grp., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-10
  The court held that the Second Amended Complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment and Monell liability, warranting dismissal.
• Demps v. Jones
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-22
  Summary judgment is granted for defendants Hanson and Kirby as Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of their presence or involvement. Summary judgment is denied regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies for other defendants, as naming all defendants is not required by FDOC
• Cantrell Dunsmore v. Wells
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-27
  The court held that Plaintiff adequately alleged a Section 1983 claim against Sheriff Wells and Manatee County for deliberate indifference, but granted dismissal of punitive damages claims against Sheriff Wells and Manatee County.
• Thomas v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-28
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations sufficiently plead deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against the nurse and physician, thus denying their motion to dismiss.
• Kinney v. Marlett
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-01-29
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for both conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to medical needs.
• Ferguson v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't of Corr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-20
  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.
• Ferguson v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't of Corr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-19
  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.
• Burton v. Espino
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-17
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, but dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim. The court also found that the plaintiff's allegations of First Amendment retaliation were sufficient t
• Seaman v. Fleurjean
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-01
  The court held that the plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for deliberate indifference against the defendant nurse, denying the motion to dismiss.
• Brown v. Does
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-05
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff must identify defendants by name to effectuate service of process and cannot compel a non-party to reveal their identities through discovery.
• Dombrowski v. Wilson
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-08
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged exhaustion of administrative remedies and stated a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
• Roy v. Ivy
  11th Cir.· 2022-11-21
  The Eleventh Circuit held that unsworn inmate statements not complying with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 cannot be considered as evidence for summary judgment, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal of claims.
• Kirtsey v. Centurion of Fla. LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-11-10
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 to compel a medical examination at the defendant's expense, especially when the plaintiff has existing medical records and access to care.