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 the officers' use of force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, entitling them to qualified immunity and statutory immunity.
-
Arthur Scott sued Cape Coral Police Department officers for excessive force and other claims arising from their March 31, 2019 response to a domestic violence call, during which Officer Vazquez tackled him and he suffered a fractured and dislocated hip. The court granted summary
-
The court held that the plaintiff's excessive force claim (Count II) fails and is dismissed due to qualified immunity, but his federal false imprisonment claim (Count III) for denial of a prompt probable cause hearing may proceed.
-
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim because it impermissibly joined unrelated claims and lacked sufficient factual detail to support the excessive force allegations.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not allege lack of probable cause for arrests or favorable termination of criminal proceedings, and certain defendants were immune from suit.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against the defendant medical provider.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-01
A federal court in Miami denied in part and granted in part motions to dismiss a civil rights complaint arising from police use of force against a peaceful protester during a George Floyd demonstration in Fort Lauderdale on May 31, 2020. The court held that the plaintiff stated a
-
A pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint challenging the constitutionality of his state-court conviction is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and must be dismissed.
-
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate clearly established law.
-
The court held that the FDOC's motion for summary judgment should be denied because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the FWDA claim and sovereign immunity.
-
The court held that the defendant city may be entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) even though the plaintiff prevailed on one count, provided the other claims were frivolous, and that arguments raised solely in footnotes are not considered.
-
Police officers who executed a search warrant that resulted in the death of an innocent bystander were entitled to qualified immunity because their use of force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. The court rejected claims by
-
The court held that a complaint lacking factual allegations fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to meet federal pleading standards and was deficient in identifying defendants and stating claims.
-
The court held that a state-law negligence claim against a Sheriff in his official capacity for negligent training of officers is barred by sovereign immunity because training decisions are discretionary functions.
-
Plaintiff Martínez Bowman sued Columbia County Sheriff Mark Hunter, Deputy David Harvey, and Deputy Jayme Gohde under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida state law following a 2020 incident in which deputies pulled over his vehicle for deficient lighting, deployed a police canine that b
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it did not sufficiently allege an unconstitutional policy or custom, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, or a violation of constitutional rights by the d
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-03-07
The court held that official capacity claims against officers are claims against the municipality, and that claims must be dismissed if they fail to allege municipal policy or custom, or if administrative remedies were not exhausted, or if defendants are entitled to qualified imm
-
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to plead a viable Monell claim, thus the City cannot be held liable under § 1983.
-
The court held that the officers' use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable and the law was clearly established, thus denying qualified immunity at the dismissal stage. The city's motion to dismiss the wrongful death claim was also denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-02-07
The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding the plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment.
-
The court held that a prisoner's complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by the PLRA.
-
Matthew Poulin sought damages for excessive force following his arrest when North Port police officers tasered him multiple times and then released a K-9 dog that repeatedly bit him, causing severe permanent injuries. The court found that while the taser use was reasonable, Offic
-
The court held that the traffic stop was based on reasonable suspicion and the subsequent order to exit the vehicle was lawful, thus granting summary judgment on the unlawful seizure claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the allegations are conclusory and vague, and fail to establish an official policy or custom as the moving force behind the alleged constitutional deprivation.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-12-09
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Corrections Medical Department or S. Geiger.
-
The Court held that the Plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to state a claim for municipal liability under Section 1983, and that they had standing for injunctive and declaratory relief.
-
Defendants are entitled to attorney's fees incurred in defending against and pursuing sanctions related to the amended complaint, and the reasonableness of fees billed after March 5, 2021 must be evaluated.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that unsworn inmate statements not complying with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 cannot be considered as evidence for summary judgment, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal of claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-11-15
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to numerous deficiencies, including duplicative claims, failure to allege personal involvement, and lack of specificity.
-
The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they had arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for breach of the peace or public nuisance, even if not for indecent exposure. The court also dismissed the municipal liability claim against the
-
The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim against the City under § 1983.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to state a claim for excessive force, and thus granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend, because it constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim for municipal liability or an equal protection violation.
-
A federal district court rejected most of the defendants' summary judgment motions and allowed the case to proceed to trial in a civil rights action stemming from John Blessing's arrest at a 2016 Pearl Jam concert, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether polic
-
The court held that the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting plaintiff ten days to file a second amended complaint.
-
The court held that the defendants' motions to dismiss based on illegibility and shotgun pleading were denied, as the complaint was legible and stated plausible claims for relief.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a municipal custom or policy for the § 1983 claim against the County and failed to allege that Detective Coto had a reasonable opportunity to intervene for the § 1983 claim against him.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was therefore dismissed.
-
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Bill of Costs.
-
The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the officer acted in bad faith, thus removing him from statutory immunity, and that the city could be liable under § 1983 for failure to train officers on plain-clothed overnight details where the need for such training
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Sheriff's Office or Detective Mazone, and that property damage claims are not cognizable under § 1983 when a post-deprivation remedy exists.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim may proceed against Corizon and Centurion, and against Drs. Shah and Shubert, as the allegations sufficiently state a plausible claim for relief.
-
The court recommended denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-05-25
The court held that the complaint contained shotgun pleading deficiencies and that certain claims against the Sheriff were barred by statute, warranting dismissal with leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege supervisory or municipal liability against the Sheriff under Section 1983 for a deputy's allegedly unlawful arrest.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that a prisoner's § 1983 claims must not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and certain defendants are immune or lack capacity to be sued.
-
The court dismissed the plaintiff's excessive force claim without prejudice, allowing him to file an amended complaint. Claims against defendants in their official capacities were dismissed, and claims against two defendants in their individual capacities were dismissed for insuf
-
The court held that the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity for the unreasonable search claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.