42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim

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

• Goldberg v. Town OF Rocky Hill
  973 F.2d 70· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-10 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability
  A municipality is not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken in a legislative capacity.
• Rocky Mountain Materials & Asphalt, Inc. v. The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF EL Paso Cnty.
  972 F.2d 309· 10th Cir.· 1992-08-05 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  A procedural due process claim is unripe if it is based on the same deprivation as an unripe takings claim.
• Walker v. Butler
  967 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Claim
  The court held that the officer's actions did not constitute deliberate indifference to the inmate's serious medical needs, as his conduct was not wanton or a reckless disregard for the inmate's rights.
• Jerry Young also known as Ramadan v. Hoffman
  970 F.2d 1154· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-31 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Deprivation Of Due Process
  The court held that an administrative reversal of a prison disciplinary hearing, which vacated the penalty, cured any due process violations and eliminated any claim for damages.
• George v. City OF Long Beach
  973 F.2d 706· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-31
  The court held that nominal damages must be awarded for a proven violation of constitutional rights, and that state law claims for false arrest and imprisonment should not have been dismissed based solely on the existence of probable cause when the arrest was otherwise unlawful.
• Taajwar K. Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth
  969 F.2d 357· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-22 ·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the prison's disciplinary hearing process satisfied the Due Process Clause requirements, affirming the judgment for the defendants.
• Doyle J. Williams v. State OF Mo.
  973 F.2d 599· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-21 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The State of Missouri is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by a state inmate.
• Packett v. Stenberg
  969 F.2d 721· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that Assistant Attorneys General in Nebraska do not possess a property interest in continued employment that would be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that patronage dismissals are permissible for policymaking positions under the First Amendment.
• Rayes v. Johnson
  969 F.2d 700· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Denial Of Medical Care
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff's requests for substitute counsel, as the circumstances warranted appointment.
• Guzowski v. Hartman
  969 F.2d 211· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-10 ·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the Sherman Act Section 1 and RICO claims failed to state a claim, and the Sherman Act Section 2, Section 1983, and Section 1985(3) claims were barred by issue preclusion.
• Boyer v. Cnty. OF Wash.
  971 F.2d 100· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-10
  A court clerk is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for issuing an arrest warrant, as this act is an integral part of the judicial process, even if performed without explicit judicial direction.
• van Pelt v. ST. Clair
  968 F.2d 763· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-09 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the claims as frivolous, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice.
• DeTOMASO v. McGINNIS
  970 F.2d 211· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-08
  The court held that a prisoner's claim for transfer to a work release program, based on eligibility criteria, does not create a liberty or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause, and thus the denial of such transfer is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• W. Wash. Cnty. Emergency Med. Servs. v. Wash. Cnty.
  967 F.2d 1252· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the appellants failed to establish a constitutionally protected property interest or a violation of equal protection, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Arlin D. Lehman v. City OF Louisville
  967 F.2d 1474· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-29
  The court held that appellants failed to establish a constitutionally protected property interest under Colorado law, precluding their due process claims, and that abstention was inappropriate.
• Cecere v. The City OF NEW York
  967 F.2d 826· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-26
  The denial of a motion for summary judgment in a § 1983 action is only appealable on questions of law, and here, it was not objectively reasonable to believe an emergency existed.
• Roman-Nose v. NEW Mexico Dep't OF Human Servs.
  967 F.2d 435· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act, allowing the plaintiff to potentially amend her complaint.
• Kyricopoulos v. Town OF Orleans
  967 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-18
  The court held that the appellant was precluded by his state court conviction from relitigating the issue of probable cause in his federal civil rights action.
• Al Aswad T.A. Muhammad v. Lynaugh
  966 F.2d 901· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-15 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Claim
• Henderson Duval Houghton v. Carroll V. South
  965 F.2d 1532· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Violation Of Constitutional Rights
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claim because he failed to demonstrate he was a qualified professional or that his decision was based on professional judgment. The court affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection cla
• Milan Chonich v. Wayne Cnty. Cmty. Coll.
  973 F.2d 1271· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-09 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability
  The court held that it was plain and prejudicial error to require plaintiffs to prove proximate cause for nominal damages in a malicious libel case, and that the prior remand necessitated further consideration of whether a new trial on § 1983 liability was required due to Monell
• O'Shea v. City OF SAN Francisco
  966 F.2d 503· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that plaintiffs' FEHA claims were not collaterally barred by the consent decree but were dismissed on the merits, and their federal claims were time-barred.
• Levin v. Harleston
  966 F.2d 85· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the creation of 'shadow classes' and the implicit threat of disciplinary action against a professor for his extramural speech violated his First Amendment rights, but that the college's response to student disruptions of his classes did not.
• Silver v. Franklin Twp.
  966 F.2d 1031· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the takings claim was not ripe for review because state remedies were not exhausted, and the substantive due process and equal protection claims failed for lack of a protected property interest and evidence of disparate treatment, respectively.
• Aswegan v. Captain Bruhl
  965 F.2d 676· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of deliberate indifference by the supervisors, and thus denied their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• S. Michael Imperiale, Jr., M.D. v. Hahnemann Univ.
  966 F.2d 125· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-04
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the defendant university's actions in revoking the plaintiff's medical degree did not constitute state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Randles v. Gregart
  965 F.2d 90· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-28
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims, affirming the judgments based on res judicata, prosecutorial immunity, and the lack of material fact disputes regarding constitutional violations.
• August Smith v. City OF Joliet
  965 F.2d 235· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-28 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a City policy or custom causing the alleged constitutional violation, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• D.C.A. Dev. Corp. v. Ogden City Mun. Corp.
  965 F.2d 827· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-22 ·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the city was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on federal due process and equal protection claims due to legitimate safety concerns and lack of discriminatory intent. Governmental immunity barred state law claims, and the negligence claim against the con
• Barringer v. Griffes
  964 F.2d 1278· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-18
  The Tax Injunction Act does not bar federal jurisdiction because Vermont's administrative tax refund procedure does not provide a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for constitutional challenges to the motor vehicle use tax.
• Metro. Pittsburgh Crusade FOR Voters v. City OF Pittsburgh
  964 F.2d 244· 3d Cir.· 1992-05-14 ·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring the lawsuit to be the "proximate cause" of the election reform, rather than a "material contributing factor." The court affirmed the denial of a risk enhancement for attorneys' fees.
• DIX v. The Cnty. OF Shasta
  963 F.2d 1296· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-08
  California's Victims' Bill of Rights grants crime victims procedural rights but does not create a liberty or property interest enforceable under the federal Due Process Clause.
• Ferdik v. Bonzelet
  963 F.2d 1258· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-07
  The court held that dismissing a pro se prisoner's civil rights action for failing to remove 'et al' from the caption was an abuse of discretion.
• Bennie Figures, Jr. v. Bd. OF Pub. Utils. OF the City OF Kan. City
  967 F.2d 357· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-07
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence, granting directed verdicts, or dismissing the Consent Decree claim, and affirmed the denial of attorney's fees.
• Collins v. Romer
  962 F.2d 1508· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-05
  The court affirmed the award of attorneys fees, holding that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties because their lawsuit was a catalyst for a legally required change in the statute, and that at least one original plaintiff remained in the case long enough to be a prevailing part
• McCabe v. Sharrett
  850 F. Supp. 987· S.D. Fla.· 1992-05-04
  The court held that a police chief's concern for confidentiality in assigning his secretary, the wife of a subordinate officer, was a constitutionally permissible reason for transfer, outweighing the employee's First Amendment rights.
• Gibson v. Foltz
  963 F.2d 851· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-04 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Violation Of Constitutional Rights
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to the inmate's safety, and thus affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
• Henschen v. City OF Houston
  959 F.2d 584· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-30
  The court held that the claim for monetary damages was not moot and should be remanded, but the claim for injunctive relief was not justiciable due to a lack of a present or future threat of harm.
• Fernandez v. Leonard
  963 F.2d 459· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)
  The court held that the district court did not err in its rulings regarding fraud on the court, autopsy photographs, or the admission of evidence concerning prior convictions and weapons, and that the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
• Blair-Bey v. Crispus NIX
  963 F.2d 162· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-27 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that a penitentiary's policy of providing a single Islamic religious advisor does not violate inmates' First Amendment rights, even if they belong to a specific sect, as long as they are given a reasonable opportunity to exercise their religious freedom.
• Gareth West v. Ruff
  961 F.2d 1064· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-23
  The court held that the inmate did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim in the state court proceeding, thus precluding the application of res judicata/collateral estoppel.
• Dell'orfano v. Romano
  962 F.2d 199· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-23
  The court held that the plaintiff was improperly denied a jury trial and that the district court's analysis of his due process claim regarding administrative segregation was incomplete.
• Smith v. Erickson
  961 F.2d 1387· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-20
  The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the prisoner's civil rights claims, denying his appeals regarding discovery and injunctive relief.
• Gomez v. The United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  966 F.2d 460· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-20 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
• Nicholson v. Moran
  961 F.2d 996· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-16 ·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the inmate's pro se complaint, as it stated cognizable claims under Section 1983 and state law.
• Earle A. Partington v. Joseph Gedan & Howard T. Chang
  961 F.2d 852· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-14
  The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding the claims non-justiciable due to mootness, immunity, Rooker-Feldman, Younger abstention, or failure to state a federal constitutional deprivation.
• Addison v. Ronda Pash
  961 F.2d 731· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-08 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the dismissal of claims against certain defendants was proper, but the dismissal of claims against other defendants prior to service was erroneous because the claims were not frivolous.
• Myers v. Judge Vogal
  960 F.2d 750· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-03
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the inmate's complaint as frivolous, either due to lack of an arguable basis in law or fact, or because the statute of limitations had run.
• Ellis v. Evans
  960 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-02
  The court held that summary judgment was properly granted for the prison officials because the inmate failed to present a genuine issue of material fact and the defendants adequately supported their motions.
• Prince v. Warden Sargent
  960 F.2d 720· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the dismissal of the inmate's § 1983 action.