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 state legislator blocked a private citizen from his official social media accounts in response to criticism of his legislative votes, and the court held that while the official capacity claim failed, the individual capacity First Amendment claim proceeded to trial because a fac
-
The District Court granted the defendant's motion to strike or dismiss the plaintiff's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. The court held that expungement of arrest records is not cognizable through a Section 1983 action against an individual officer, as Florida law l
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies because his self-serving and unsupported claims of destroyed grievances lacked credibility.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint alleging the existence of 'mind reading machines' used by a jail is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
The court adopted in part and rejected in part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the plaintiff's amended complaint as a shotgun pleading and several of his claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was a deficient "shotgun pleading" and that his application to proceed in forma pauperis was improperly filed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied due to insufficient documentation, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim and for being a shotgun pleading, with leave to amend.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-02-10
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding the county's curfew order was not preempted by state law, not an ultra vires act, and that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege municipal liability for Fourth Amendment violations.
-
The court held that while allegations against some nurses were insufficient, claims against Centurion Doctors, Nurses Morton and Mahoney, and Centurion Administrators, as well as Centurion's policies, could plausibly support a claim for deliberate indifference.
-
A pro se motion for a new trial, even if stricken as unauthorized, tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal if filed within the time permitted by rule. The court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, adhering to its prior order granting summary judgment for the defendant on several claims.
-
The court granted summary judgment for the deputies on the Section 1983 excessive force claims, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity.
-
The court held that claims against Officer Casey were time-barred due to failure to meet the 'mistake' requirement for relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C), and that official capacity claims against Chief Quiñones were dismissed because the police department is not a suable entit
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that abstention was appropriate due to an ongoing state criminal proceeding.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint against a judge is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim and for seeking relief from an immune defendant.
-
The court held that the expert's testimony should be excluded because his supplemental affidavit was untimely and prejudicial, and his methodology for analyzing shell casings and the victim's actions was unreliable and would not assist the trier of fact.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, even when liberally construed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-11-05
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se civil rights complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to insufficient pleading regarding defendants and constitutional violations.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-10-19
The court held that a civilly committed individual's claim that a medical professional denied him medical marijuana for glaucoma fails to state a constitutional claim, as it does not allege a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment.
-
The court held that a successive habeas corpus petition filed without authorization from the court of appeals must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under Section 1983 and that the state law negligence claim was properly dismissed for failure to comply with statutory pre-suit notice requirements.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, or injunctive relief, and that claims against certain defendants were based on impermissible respondeat superior.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not adequately allege a policy or custom for the official capacity claim and did not sufficiently plead the absence of probable cause for the individual capacity claim. The court also
-
The court held that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on claims of false arrest and excessive force, requiring these issues to proceed to trial.
-
A public defender does not act under color of state law for § 1983 claims, and state entities are not liable under respondeat superior or the Eleventh Amendment.
-
The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated good cause to amend his complaint after the deadline, and the proposed amendments were not futile.
-
A prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, evident on the face of the complaint, requires dismissal of the action.
-
The court denied the City of Venice's motion to dismiss Count I, finding the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a municipal custom of racial discrimination and causation.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a municipal policy or custom for his excessive force and inadequate medical treatment claims, and also failed to properly serve one defendant, leading to dismissal of federal claims and remand of the state law claim.
-
A federal court lacks jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when the petitioner is not in the custody of the respondent authority, and an immigration detainer alone does not satisfy this requirement.
-
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity for excessive force and battery claims, and the negligence claim was impermissible under Florida law.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2020-07-27
Summary judgment is granted for the defendants because the plaintiff's evidence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference under controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, requiring dismissal of his civil rights complaint.
-
The court accepted the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal, effectively dismissing the case without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and must be amended.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations and that leave to amend would be futile, affirming the dismissal of the case.
-
A judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages and relief for actions taken in their judicial capacity, even if acting maliciously or in excess of authority, unless acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-28
The court held that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is subject to dismissal under the PLRA.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged an equal protection claim against the City for selective enforcement of a facially neutral ordinance.
-
The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the excessive force claim, precluding summary judgment, and that officers are not entitled to qualified immunity based on the plaintiff's version of events. Summary judgment was granted for the failure to interve
-
Prison inmate Jean-Denis sued corrections sergeant Tate and physician Aviles under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Tate deprived him of meals and water while on self-harm observation status at a Florida prison and that Aviles denied him proper medical treatment for resulting inju
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint sufficiently pleaded claims for excessive force and supervisory liability, meeting federal pleading standards.
-
The court held that the defendants' motion to revoke the plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and dismiss the case under the PLRA's 'three strikes' provision must be denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-02
The court held that claims against deputies were dismissed as shotgun pleading, certain claims against the Sheriff were dismissed for lack of private right of action or capacity, but the Section 1983 claim against the Sheriff for a custom of excessive force could proceed.
-
A prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim, who is not under imminent danger, must pay the filing fee upfront and is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis.
-
The court held that the Second Amended Complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and was dismissed without prejudice, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to file a Third Amended Complaint.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's excessive force claims are not barred by Heck, but claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot, and monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
-
The court held that probable cause existed for the arrest, thus dismissing false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, but denied dismissal for excessive force claims due to allegations of unreasonable force against an elderly individual. The court also found that an adjudicat
-
The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's alleged injuries were de minimis as a matter of law, thus denying their motion for partial summary judgment.
-
The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage for the false arrest claim, and the Sheriff was not entitled to dismissal of the § 1983 municipal liability, battery, and false arrest claims.