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
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-30
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a due process violation because he did not allege a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-30
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-29
The court held that the course of proceedings indicated the defendants were sued in both their individual and official capacities, despite the lack of clarity in the pleadings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-28
The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to state a plausible claim for an Eighth Amendment violation against the defendant officers.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-09-24
The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the Broward County Sheriff's Office is not a legal entity and that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead deliberate indifference for ADA/RA claims and custom/policy for Section 1983 claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-09-22
A prosecutor is absolutely immune from civil rights suits for damages when acting within their prosecutorial functions, including initiating and refiling charges.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-21
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under Section 1983 and that the state law negligence claim was properly dismissed for failure to comply with statutory pre-suit notice requirements.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-14
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, or injunctive relief, and that claims against certain defendants were based on impermissible respondeat superior.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-14
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and thus it is dismissed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-11
The court held that the defendant doctor was not deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical needs and that the plaintiff's claims for violation of religious rights and breach of contract also failed.
-
The court held that the settlement amount, but not the entire agreement, is discoverable for set-off purposes.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-07
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not adequately allege a policy or custom for the official capacity claim and did not sufficiently plead the absence of probable cause for the individual capacity claim. The court also
-
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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, finding the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not demonstrate deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs because he did not identify an official policy or custom of the defendant that caused the alleged constitutional violation.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims, and therefore, amendment of the complaint would be futile.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-09-01
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing negligence, assault, and battery claims against the United States, but allowing the false imprisonment claim to proceed. The court also dismissed duplicative claims against the agents and denied qualif
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-01
The court held that the defendants, who were not medical professionals and lacked direct involvement in the plaintiff's medical care, were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims of deliberate indifference.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-31
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the Sheriff's Office and Deputy Chronis, but granted her leave to amend the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-28
A prisoner's civil rights complaint alleging violations of a state landlord-tenant statute, without alleging a deprivation of federally protected rights, fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Negligent acts causing unintended injury do not implicate due process.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-27
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-25
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-08-19
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for relief and lacked sufficient factual allegations for jurisdiction.
-
The court denied the City of Venice's motion to dismiss Count I, finding the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a municipal custom of racial discrimination and causation.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-11
The court held that there was no evidence that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's serious medical needs, and therefore summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-08-07
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-03
The court held that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars state law claims and federal claims for monetary damages against the warden in his official capacity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-31
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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-29
The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice because the plaintiff failed to correct the legal deficiencies identified in the initial complaint, despite being given leave to amend.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-27
Public defenders are not state actors for purposes of § 1983, and the complaint was frivolous and baseless.
-
Summary judgment is granted for the defendants because the plaintiff's evidence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference under controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent.
-
The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement, dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-20
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint was barred by the statute of limitations and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and thus failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-16
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed as frivolous if it fails to allege state action by private defendants.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-14
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because it constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a private insurance company.
-
The court held that the complaint, default, and default judgment could be amended by interlineation to correct the defendant's name to Dr. Glenn Pearson.
-
A § 1983 action is not the proper vehicle for a pretrial detainee seeking release based on speedy trial or double jeopardy claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, requiring dismissal of his civil rights complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-22
The court held that a citizen does not have a constitutional right to have police officers arrest another citizen, and therefore, the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-18
The court held that the challenged paragraphs were not immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous and therefore denied the motion to strike.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-11
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not articulate a specific federal right violated or provide sufficient factual allegations for a Fourth Amendment violation or conspiracy.
-
The court accepted the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal, effectively dismissing the case without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-04
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and must be amended.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-02
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the sheriff's office and jail are not legal entities, and no specific claims were made against the sheriff.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment because he did not allege an official policy or custom of the defendant that caused the alleged constitutional violation.