3,807 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 3,026 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-08-04
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment regarding prison conditions or medical care.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-08-04
The court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-01
The court denied the defendants' motion to stay discovery and granted the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, awarding costs.
-
11th Cir.·
2025-07-31
Brandon Fulton sued Fulton County after the county seized his horses during a criminal investigation, dropped charges against him, and failed to return or compensate him for the animals. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause creates a direct cause of
-
The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a seizure for malicious prosecution, that punitive damages were unavailable against the City, that injunctive relief was moot, and that the officer was protected by qualified immunity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's official-capacity claims were dismissed, but his individual-capacity failure-to-protect claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-28
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and the definition of 'person' under § 1983, warranting dismissal.
-
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to cruel and unsafe conditions under the Eighth Amendment.
-
The court denied the defendant's motion to reopen discovery because the defendant failed to show good cause and excusable neglect.
-
The court held that Deputy Barnes is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force was objectively reasonable and not a violation of clearly established law, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a deliberate indifference claim against Sheriff Chronister.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-22
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to meet federal pleading standards and directed him to amend it.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-22
A pro se prisoner sued correctional facility officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that other inmates cut her hair using razors provided by the defendants. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to adequately allege a violation of any federal constitu
-
The court held that the amended complaint is a shotgun pleading and that service on defendants Kohr and AIPAC was improper, leading to a lack of personal jurisdiction over them. However, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-16
The court held that while the plaintiff's claim was not barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the complaint was dismissed for failing to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) due to being a shotgun pleading and improperly alleging respondeat superior.
-
The court dismissed the action because the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee, move to proceed in forma pauperis, and comply with procedural rules for filing a complaint and seeking injunctive relief.
-
11th Cir.·
2025-07-14
The Eleventh Circuit held that a district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing a pro se prisoner's civil rights suit without prejudice for failing to fully disclose his litigation history on a standardized complaint form, as this fell under the court's inherent author
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-07-14
The court held that while the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judicata do not apply, the plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations, and the only non-time-barred claim involves a private actor not subject to § 1983.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-09
The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint failed to state a claim because it improperly named defendants and did not allege direct involvement of the sheriff. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to amend.
-
The court held that a Section 1983 claim against supervisors based on respondeat superior or failure to respond to grievances is not cognizable, and claims against officials must specify individual or official capacity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-09
The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the New Jersey defendants were time-barred and that venue was improper for the remaining claims, warranting transfer to the Southern District of Florida.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Eighth Amendment.
-
The court held that the admission of the plaintiff's prior conviction and drug use evidence was proper, and denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an appeal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-03
The court recommended dismissal of the complaint for failing to state a claim and violating procedural rules, but granted leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-30
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction must be denied because she failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of her § 1983 claim.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-30
The court recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-29
The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint failed to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was also likely barred by the statute of limitations.
-
A prisoner's claim of excessive force against an individual officer may proceed, but claims against supervisors based on respondeat superior, claims regarding jail commissary prices, and claims against public defenders are dismissed.
-
The court held that a blanket protective order is not warranted based solely on the number of requests for admission, and a motion to compel must be filed in the district where compliance is required.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-25
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her § 1983 claim because she did not demonstrate that the defendants' conduct occurred under the "color of law."
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-24
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-24
The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a municipal policy or custom for a § 1983 claim based on failure to train, and thus dismissed the federal claim with prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-20
The court held that the third amended complaint, a shotgun pleading, failed to state plausible claims, and video evidence contradicted the plaintiff's allegations, warranting dismissal with prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim for unlawful detainment under § 1983 against the moving defendants, as they were not personally involved in the decision to detain the plaintiff.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-18
A plaintiff cannot sue private citizens under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they do not act under color of state law. Federal courts must also abstain from interfering in pending state criminal proceedings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-18
A pretrial detainee filed a § 1983 civil rights action against a private business and two law enforcement agencies. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because the private defendant did not act under color of state law and the police departments are not
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-17
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, overruled the plaintiff's objections, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The court held that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Lane are dismissed, official capacity claims for damages are dismissed, and the request for termination of an employee is stricken, but claims against Defendants Pope-Jones and Boone regarding excessive force and failure to
-
The court held that venue was improper and the plaintiff's claims were frivolous, warranting dismissal rather than transfer.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-12
The court accepted the magistrate judge's report, granting the motion to dismiss because the Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over state tax disputes and the amended complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-10
The court held that the plaintiff's objection, which presented new facts not alleged in the sixth amended complaint, was overruled and the Report and Recommendation was adopted.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-10
Special Magistrate Roepstorff is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity, and certain claims against other defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim or lack of constitutional basis.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-09
The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was frivolous and must be dismissed. Claims against state actors were barred by immunity or failure to state a claim, and the action was time-barred.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to proceed anonymously, as his privacy interests did not outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-06-05
The court accepted the plaintiff's untimely second amended complaint but recommended dismissal because it failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and constituted a shotgun pleading.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-03
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state plausible claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' amended complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading, failing to provide adequate notice of the claims against the defendants, and therefore recommended dismissal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-02
The court held that a prisoner's § 1983 claim alleging excessive force is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, even if factual allegations conflict with a prison disciplinary finding, as long as the claim does not necessarily imply the invalidity of that finding. The failure-to-interv
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-05-30
The court held that the prisoner's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to multiple deficiencies, but dismissed it without prejudice to allow for an amended complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-30
The court held that the plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's report were without merit and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.