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
-
Pro se plaintiff James R. Leach sued Sarasota County Sheriff deputies for excessive force, First Amendment retaliation, and malicious prosecution arising from his arrest for felony driving with a suspended license in February 2017. The federal district court granted summary judgm
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-03-28
The court held that the defendant detective was entitled to qualified immunity because probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff, and therefore the plaintiff failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment.
-
Claims against Flagler County and the Sheriff's Office are dismissed without prejudice, but the excessive force claim against Officer Green will proceed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged deliberate indifference by individual defendants but dismissed the claim against the healthcare provider due to lack of policy or custom.
-
The court held that the plaintiff, a prisoner with three prior dismissals, cannot proceed in forma pauperis because his alleged injuries do not constitute imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against any of the defendants, either individually or in their official capacities. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-02-17
The court held that the county board's decision not to consider a proclamation constituted government speech, not a violation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments or Florida's Sunshine Law. The court also found no private cause of action for violation of the board's internal rul
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-02-15
The court granted the City of Vero Beach's motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff failed to state a claim for municipal liability under § 1983. The court converted the individual defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
-
The court granted in part Sheriff Gualtieri's motion for summary judgment, finding that claims against him for battery and false arrest were barred by sovereign immunity because the deputy's actions constituted bad faith, malice, or willful and wanton disregard for the plaintiff'
-
The court held that the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend due to deficiencies including failure to comply with IFP requirements and pleading a shotgun complaint.
-
Summary judgment is granted for Defendant Gonzalez because the plaintiff's claims against him are unsupported by evidence, and even if the alleged actions occurred, they do not rise to the level of excessive force or outrageous conduct, and qualified immunity applies.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish municipal liability under § 1983 because the allegations regarding the City Manager's final policymaking authority were conclusory and unsupported by facts, and the City Manager's decisions were subject to review by the City C
-
The court held that probable cause for the arrest barred the plaintiff's false arrest and § 1983 claims, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.
-
The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Lee Memorial Health System had notice of Hechavarria's unfitness and whether its actions constituted deliberate indifference or negligence, thus denying summary judgment.
-
The court held that claims against defendants in their official capacities and against fictitious John Doe defendants are dismissed, but claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs against nineteen individual defendants may proceed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims for takings, inverse condemnation, and procedural due process against the County and Officer Pisano, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-18
The court held that the plaintiff's claims under § 1983 were precluded by the ADA's remedial framework, and dismissed ADA claims for failure to state a claim, but granted leave to amend due to plaintiff's pro se status.
-
The court held that a pretrial detainee's constitutional right of access to courts is satisfied if he is offered legal counsel and voluntarily proceeds pro se, even if he claims a lack of legal supplies.
-
A complaint alleging misdiagnosis of a cellmate's tuberculosis and subsequent exposure, without alleging deliberate indifference or a policy violation, fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the pro se inmate's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, but denied the motion to dismiss the complaint as a shotgun pleading.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-25
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights.
-
The court recommended granting the plaintiff's petition to approve the attorney ad litem report and enter an order approving the parties' proposed settlement agreement.
-
The court held that the complaint, while containing some improper re-incorporation of paragraphs, provided sufficient notice and was not a shotgun pleading; however, the federal claims against the County and MDPD were dismissed for failure to adequately allege a municipal policy
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a municipal custom or policy to establish municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient for multiple reasons, including failure to comply with IFP requirements, shotgun pleading, failure to state a claim against a municipality, and seeking non-cognizable relief under § 1983.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, denying the motion to strike.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was procedurally deficient.
-
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's § 1983 claims for unlawful stop, arrest, and search.
-
A prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolousness or failure to state a claim is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
Dillon Webb sued Columbia County sheriff's deputies and the sheriff for violating his constitutional rights when they arrested him for displaying an obscene bumper sticker reading "I EAT A**" on his vehicle and subsequently subjected him to incarceration and a strip search. The c
-
A police officer's use of force claim under the Fourth Amendment was dismissed as barred by qualified immunity, where the officer's conduct—including pointing a firearm, using physical contact, and deploying a taser against a non-compliant suspect—was not clearly established as u
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that his claims, even if considered on the merits, were insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference or constitutional violations.
-
The court granted in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing several counts but allowing the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Detective Garcia and one wrongful death claim against him to proceed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and improperly joined unrelated claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim under § 1983 and lacked exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel.
-
The court held that summary judgment was premature due to the need for discovery, but dismissed claims against John Doe defendants and official capacity claims against other defendants. It also found that officers Smith and Mazuryk were entitled to qualified immunity on the failu
-
A visually impaired inmate filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that a correctional sergeant used excessive force by spraying chemical agent directly into his surgically repaired eyes despite his nonresistance, and that the warden was deliberately indiffere
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office or Sheriff Mike Williams, either individually or in his official capacity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-05-20
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the City for failure to train, supervise, or hire, and that the claim for punitive damages against the officer was conclusory and should be struck.
-
The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence of similarly situated comparators and the rational basis for the City's enforcement actions.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-30
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983 because the alleged retaliatory conduct would not deter a person of ordinary firmness and the temporal proximity was too attenuated to infer a causal connection.
-
The court held that the arrest report could not be considered on a motion to dismiss because it was not attached to the complaint and its contents were disputed. The court also found that the plaintiff's allegations, if true, stated a claim for excessive force against Officer Gon
-
The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged supervisory liability against Sheriff Roberts and denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage, but granted in part the motion to strike punitive damages and attorney's fees claims.
-
The court held that the proper venue for the plaintiff's civil rights complaint was the Middle District of Florida, not the Eastern District of Michigan.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-09
The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a policy or custom of deliberate indifference to medical needs, and therefore denied the sheriff's motion to dismiss on those grounds, deferring the issue of causation.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded facts to support their First Amendment retaliation claims, as they alleged speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern, and therefore denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
-
Red Door Asian Bistro, an Asian restaurant owned by Asian-heritage plaintiffs, sued Fort Lauderdale alleging that a city mechanical inspector discriminated against them based on race and national origin by improperly denying and revoking their permits, and that the city ratified