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
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-19
The court held that the law enforcement privilege protects the identities of undercover officers, and the plaintiffs' need for this information in a civil rights action does not outweigh the public interest in maintaining officer confidentiality and investigative integrity.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-10-18
Summary judgment is granted for Dr. Hasty but denied for Centurion, as Centurion may be liable for constitutional violations stemming from its policy or custom of unexplained delays in medical treatment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-15
The court held that Deputy Redinger is not entitled to qualified immunity because, under the plaintiff's version of the facts, the force used was gratuitous and violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-13
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to continue the stay of the case.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-10-13
The court held that the defendant is entitled to attorney's fees because the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-05
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, denying the motion to strike.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-10-05
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient for multiple reasons, including failure to comply with IFP requirements, shotgun pleading, failure to state a claim against a municipality, and seeking non-cognizable relief under § 1983.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-04
The court held that the defendant detective was entitled to summary judgment on all claims because the plaintiff failed to present evidence of constitutional violations, including unlawful entry, search, property destruction, or unlawful arrest.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-10-04
The court recommends dismissal of the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute the case and comply with two court orders.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-30
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against any of the federal or state defendants.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-30
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it lacked sufficient factual allegations to establish the defendant's liability.
-
Florida Carry, a gun rights advocacy group, challenged the police detention and disarming of its members during a June 2018 "open carry" event on a Miami Beach pier, bringing federal civil rights claims under the Fourth and First Amendments and Section 1983. The court granted sum
-
The court recommended dismissal of the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute the case, comply with court orders, and update his address.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-09-29
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's § 1983 claims for unlawful stop, arrest, and search.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-28
The court held that venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida and dismissed several claims for failure to state a claim, but allowed the defamation claim to proceed.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-09-28
The court held that the plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata because they arise from the same facts and parties as a prior federal case that was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
-
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.
-
The court recommended dismissal of the action because the plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis after multiple opportunities and warnings.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-20
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, clarification, and leave to amend, finding no basis for reconsideration, that the clarification request was moot, and that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for an untimely amendment.
-
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
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-09-16
A negligent or intentional deprivation of personal property does not constitute a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available under state law.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-09-02
The court held that the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office is an improper defendant and that the plaintiff's complaint, containing vague and conclusory allegations, failed to state a claim under federal or state law, but granted leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-30
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and improperly joined unrelated claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-27
The court granted the City's motion to dismiss, finding Plaintiff failed to state a claim for municipal liability and due process violations, and dismissed claims against individual officers for failure to serve process.
-
11th Cir.·
2021-08-20
The Eleventh Circuit held that a stipulation of dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) immediately divests the district court of jurisdiction, rendering subsequent orders reopening the case void. The court also held that Rule 60(a) cannot be used to correct a perceived error
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-18
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief in Counts II and IV of his amended complaint, as he did not identify the specific constitutional right infringed or the statutory basis for his claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim under § 1983 and lacked exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-17
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his excessive force claim, as he did not file a timely informal grievance as required by PLRA and Florida's prison grievance procedures.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-13
The court held that judges and prosecutors are immune from suit, and court-appointed attorneys are not state actors for § 1983 claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-10
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against Centurion Healthcare and Peterson, and failed to exhaust administrative remedies or state a claim against the remaining defendants.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-05
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to procedural and substantive deficiencies.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, as the allegations amounted to negligence or malpractice, not a constitutional violation.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-03
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim, is an impermissible shotgun pleading, and certain claims are barred by Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstention doctrines.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the supervisory defendant for deliberate indifference, even though administrative remedies were exhausted.
-
The court held that the case should be remanded to state court because the federal claims were insufficient and did not confer federal question jurisdiction, but denied attorney fees as removal was not objectively unreasonable.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-30
The court held that a pro se prisoner who misrepresents his financial situation in an IFP application and fails to pay the filing fee must have his case dismissed without prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-30
The court held that a pro se litigant's case must be dismissed without prejudice for failing to provide a certified inmate account statement with IFP motions and for having sufficient funds to pay the filing fee.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-27
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state a claim against any defendant and was therefore dismissed without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and thus the complaint must be dismissed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-21
A pro se litigant cannot represent others in a class action, and the plaintiff's individual complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-19
The pro se prisoner's complaint is dismissed with prejudice under the 'three-strikes' rule and as frivolous because it fails to state a claim and contains irrational allegations.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-15
A pro se prisoner's complaint is dismissed without prejudice if it constitutes a shotgun pleading and fails to state a plausible claim for relief.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-14
Plaintiff Yolaisy Perez sought to amend her complaint in a fatal police shooting case by adding eight new defendants and three new causes of action more than eight months after the amendment deadline had passed and after fifty-five depositions had been taken. The court denied the
-
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
-
The court held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiff's current claims because they arose from the same nucleus of operative facts as a prior action, which had resulted in a final adjudication on the merits.
-
The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently pleaded and that factual development was necessary.
-
The court held that a plaintiff may plead alternative damages, such as survival and wrongful death claims, in the alternative within a single count at the pleading stage.