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
-
The court held that some claims, including deliberate indifference and First Amendment retaliation, could proceed, while others, particularly policy-based claims against supervisory officials and entities, were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint, which relied on criminal statutes and failed to comply with pleading rules and prior court orders, should be dismissed without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the police department and officers, warranting dismissal.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient factual allegations to plausibly establish a municipal policy or custom that was the moving force behind her alleged constitutional deprivations under section 1983.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-11-26
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint and dismissed the claims against the original defendants, allowing the case to proceed against a newly identified defendant.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and further amendment would be futile.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not identify responsible individuals or allege a custom or policy causing the deprivation of rights.
-
The court held that a prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation history on a court form constitutes abuse of the judicial process, warranting dismissal of the case without prejudice.
-
The court held that a prisoner who is a 'three-striker' cannot proceed in forma pauperis without alleging imminent danger, and the current claim is barred by res judicata.
-
The court held that the Sheriff's motion to dismiss should be granted because the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the Sheriff's Office had a policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court also found that Dr. Dully's motion to dismiss shoul
-
The court granted the Department of Children and Families' motion to stay discovery and all deadlines as to that defendant, finding its motion to dismiss appeared clearly meritorious and case dispositive.
-
Travis Roe sued Sheriff Michelle Cook and Deputies Clint Redmond and Mark Maertz for excessive force and related claims arising from his arrest in August 2020 for murder. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the excessive force and failure to intervene
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-24
The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing official capacity claims with prejudice and individual capacity claims against supervisors without prejudice.
-
A prisoner's complaint must be dismissed without prejudice as a malicious abuse of the judicial process if the prisoner fails to accurately disclose their prior litigation history on the required complaint form.
-
Plaintiff Ronnie Reed sued Sheriff Thomas Kevin Waters and Jacksonville Sheriff's Office officers alleging they unconstitutionally strip-searched him multiple times on a public street based on unfounded suspicion, without finding any evidence. The court found Reed stated a plausi
-
N.D. Fla.·
2024-10-17
The court held that the amended complaint fails to state a claim because it lacks specific factual allegations and is barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint is barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissed action and should also be dismissed as malicious for failing to truthfully disclose his litigation history on the complaint form.
-
Amir Shadmani sued Officers J.M. Barnes and A.G. Scott for using excessive force during his arrest following a suspected cocaine possession, and sued Sheriff T.K. Waters for municipal liability and battery. The court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, finding th
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-07
The court held that the plaintiff's proposed amended complaint was deficient and denied his motion to amend, but granted him leave to file a new amended complaint.
-
The court recommended denying the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff plausibly alleged a property interest in her employment, a deprivation of due process due to lack of a hearing, and a liberty interest claim based on a stigmatizing statement in her termination letter
-
A prisoner with three prior dismissals for frivolity or failure to state a claim is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless they allege imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
A pro se prisoner's complaint must contain plausible factual allegations that state a claim for relief, and vague assertions or labels are insufficient. Entities like Sheriff's Offices are not suable under Florida law.
-
The court recommended denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
-
The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently exhausted administrative remedies and adequately alleged state law claims to survive a motion to dismiss.
-
A municipality cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on respondeat superior; plaintiffs must plead a municipal custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation.
-
Plaintiff's claims for false arrest and false imprisonment are barred by Heck v. Humphrey because a judgment in her favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of her convictions, and the Sheriff's Department is not a suable entity under Florida law.
-
A prisoner must properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a Section 1983 action, and failure to do so mandates dismissal.
-
A prisoner's civil rights complaint alleging constitutional violations during state criminal proceedings is properly dismissed with prejudice if the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, Heck v. Humphrey, or if the defendants are immune or not state actors.
-
The court held that the federal law claims in Counts XVIII and XIX were duplicative and dismissed Count XVIII, the willful and wanton conduct claim in Count XX was barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed, and the indemnification claim in Count XXVII was dismissed.
-
The court held that the complaint fails to state a claim because it names improper parties and lacks sufficient factual allegations for the remaining claims.
-
Summary judgment is granted for defendants Hanson and Kirby as Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of their presence or involvement. Summary judgment is denied regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies for other defendants, as naming all defendants is not required by FDOC
-
The court held that dismissal without prejudice is an appropriate sanction for a pro se prisoner's failure to comply with court orders and keep the court apprised of his address.
-
A prisoner sued two Florida correctional officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights through attempts to obstruct his grievance filings and retaliation for filing grievances, and the magistrate judge found that the prisoner properly exhaust
-
A prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation history, even if unintentional, warrants dismissal of the case without prejudice as malicious due to abuse of the judicial process.
-
A prisoner's failure to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit requires dismissal of the action without prejudice.
-
The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that only the plaintiff's termination was a timely actionable claim and that he failed to establish claims for race discrimination, national origin discrimination, or retaliation.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing individual plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing, claims against John Doe defendants, and supervisory liability claims, while allowing amendment for wrongful death claims and denying dismissal for ex
-
The court held that while individual-capacity claims and official-capacity claims against some defendants are dismissed, the official-capacity claim against Secretary Dixon for injunctive relief under RLUIPA and the First Amendment survives.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for a temporary restraining order and denied his motions.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the legislative defendants and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
The court granted summary judgment for defendants on most claims, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding excessive force and upholding qualified immunity.
-
Sandra and John Corbin sued Charlotte County Sheriff's Office deputies for excessive force, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to medical needs following Sandra's arrest during a traffic stop, where Deputy Aaron Williams leg-swept her, causing a fractured tibia. The court
-
The court held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the excessive force and assault/battery claims against Defendant North, but granted summary judgment for Defendant Carter on the deliberate indifference claim.
-
In this case, three innocent bystanders shot by a police officer while sitting in a parked car at a restaurant drive-through sued the officer and county for excessive force and related state law torts. The court denied the officer's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment excessiv
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a 'class of one' equal protection claim because it did not identify a similarly situated comparator with adequate specificity, and dismissed the procedural due process claim for failure to plead the unavailability of
-
The court held that Plaintiff adequately alleged a Section 1983 claim against Sheriff Wells and Manatee County for deliberate indifference, but granted dismissal of punitive damages claims against Sheriff Wells and Manatee County.
-
The court held that it must abstain from hearing a civil-rights complaint when it interferes with ongoing state criminal proceedings and child custody matters, as no exceptions to the Younger abstention doctrine apply.
-
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it lacks arguable merit in law or fact.
-
The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the Sheriff's Office was an improper defendant, official capacity claims were redundant, individual capacity claims against the Sheriff failed for lack of personal involvement, and the remaining claims were barred by qualified