521 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,043 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
A 19-year-old experiencing a mental health crisis was restrained by family members who called 911, and police officers responded and used force including tasers and punches while attempting to detain and handcuff him. The Eleventh Circuit reversed qualified immunity for officers
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the officer's conduct, while egregious, did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, and therefore qualified immunity should be granted.
-
The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the Florida Highway Patrol is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment and that Trooper Rivera is entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims.
-
Former and current female inmates at a Florida correctional facility sued medical contractor Centurion under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging sexual assaults by one of its physicians, Dr. Ader Benoit, during gynecological appointments violated their Eighth Amendment rights and that Cen
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-13
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is dismissed with prejudice.
-
A prisoner who is a 'three-striker' under the PLRA must pay the filing fee unless alleging imminent danger of serious physical injury, and failure to do so warrants dismissal without prejudice.
-
The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that while some of the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim or due to immunity, others, particularly those alleging excessive force after the plaintiff was subdued, could proceed.
-
A pro se plaintiff cannot seek reconsideration of a voluntary dismissal under Rule 59(e) when no judgment was entered, and a Rule 60(b) motion is untimely and lacks valid grounds.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint seeking monetary damages against state employees in their official capacities must be dismissed for failure to state a claim due to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and that compensatory damages were barred by statute.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history on the court's required complaint form warrants dismissal without prejudice.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis, under a pseudonym, and for referral to the Volunteer Attorney Program, requiring an amended complaint.
-
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.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
-
A pro se prisoner's civil rights case can be dismissed without prejudice for failing to accurately disclose prior litigation history on the court-approved complaint form, even if the failure was due to misunderstanding.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for a constitutional violation regarding jail visitation.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead municipal liability under Section 1983 and failed to establish the conditions precedent for her Title VII claims, warranting dismissal.
-
The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the decedent's actions in reaching for his handgun created an immediate threat, and thus no constitutional violation occurred. Consequently, the Monell claim against the city also failed.
-
The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice and granted the motion to strike the supplemental second amended complaint.
-
The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, a prerequisite for injunctive relief.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-06
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible § 1983 claim against the defendant in his official capacity due to sovereign immunity and failed to establish supervisory liability. The court also held that state law claims for punitive damages against the defendant
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed without prejudice because it is duplicative of an earlier action and therefore malicious under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
-
A police officer employed by the City of Sarasota alleged she was terminated because of her transgender status and gender dysphoria, bringing claims for gender and disability discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, due process violations, and retaliation under Title VII and
-
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the Plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
-
The court recommended denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was procedurally deficient, failed to state a claim, and constituted an improper shotgun pleading, warranting dismissal.
-
The court recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because it constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim under many cited statutes, and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied without prejudice.
-
The court held that the Tampa Police Department is not a proper defendant under § 1983 and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for municipal liability or underlying constitutional violations. However, the pro se plaintiff is granted one final opportunity to amend her compl
-
The court held that while a jury could find Officer Samples's use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable, he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the incident.
-
11th Cir.·
2025-10-17
Six female former inmates of the Jasper City Jail sued jail supervisors and the city for sexual abuse perpetrated by jailers under the Eighth Amendment and federal trafficking statute, but the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants because the plaintiffs failed to pro
-
11th Cir.·
2025-10-14
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary causal connection between the actions of the election supervisor and the issuance of a trespass warning and arrest by a police sergeant.
-
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessary emergency circumstances for proceeding without notice to the defendants. The court deferred consideration of a preliminary injunction pending service and respon
-
The court recommended denial of the plaintiff's motions for temporary restraining orders because he failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) regarding immediate and irreparable injury and proper notice certification.
-
The court held that a second amended complaint filed without leave was properly stricken, and that the plaintiff's allegations of a jail officer using fecal matter on handcuffs stated claims for deliberate indifference and excessive force, thus denying qualified immunity at the m
-
The court held that the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed all claims without prejudice due to insufficient factual allegations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient for failing to comply with procedural rules and for failing to state a plausible claim for relief, requiring an amended filing.
-
The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice.
-
Nihal Michael Gautam sued the City of Sunrise and multiple police officers under federal civil rights laws and state law, alleging false arrest, excessive force, failure to intervene, municipal liability, civil RICO violations, and violations of Florida's Public Records Act stemm
-
The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the plaintiff's claims of excessive force and battery.
-
The court held that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and FCRA, and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, but failed to state claims for retaliation under the ADA, FCRA, and First Amendment.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against any of the defendants under the Eighth Amendment.
-
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.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-07-08
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.