42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violations

30 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Turpin v. Mailet
  619 F.2d 196· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 114×
  The court held that while a municipality's failure to discipline an employee can, in some circumstances, constitute an official policy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the evidence presented in this case was insufficient as a matter of law to establish such a policy.
• Walton v. Eaton Corp.
  563 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-18 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a plaintiff who waives the right to a jury trial in an initial complaint cannot revive that right by filing a second, substantially identical complaint, even if it demands a jury trial and alleges new damages.
• Lenell Geter v. Fortenberry
  849 F.2d 1550· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 30×
  Prosecutors Wade and Isenberg are entitled to absolute immunity for actions within the judicial phase of prosecution, and Geter's defamation claim does not implicate a constitutional right. Officer Kuhn is not entitled to immunity if he procured false identification by unlawful m
• Manax v. Lanelle L. McNAMARA
  842 F.2d 808· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under RICO or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the alleged association lacked continuity for a RICO enterprise and the defendants' actions did not constitute state action for the § 1983 claim.
• Hernandez v. Denton
  861 F.2d 1421· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 18×
  A district court may dismiss a pro se in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous only if it lacks any "arguable substance in law or fact," and cannot dismiss based on credibility determinations of the allegations.
• Heille v. The City OF ST. Paul
  671 F.2d 1134· 8th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite nexus with interstate commerce for his antitrust claims and that his § 1983 claims were also properly dismissed.
• Zivojinovich v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co., LLC
  445 F. Supp. 2d 1337· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing for their loss of business revenue claim and dismissed it, but denied motions to dismiss most other federal and state law claims, including a counterclaim for battery.
• Stachel v. City of Cape Canaveral
  51 F. Supp. 2d 1326· M.D. Fla.· 1999-06-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims due to arguable probable cause for the arrest and minimal force used, and dismissed state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.
• DeMarcus v. Univ. of S. Ala.
  133 F.4th 1305· 11th Cir.· 2025-04-10 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the players' allegations did not establish violations of Title IX or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• Buckey v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  968 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend her complaint to potentially state a claim for conspiracy under color of state law to deny due process and equal protection.
• State OF Mo. ex rel. Minnie E. T. Gore v. R. Dean Wochner, M.D.
  620 F.2d 183· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that violations of state law or city regulations, without infringement of federally protected rights, do not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Colle v. Brazos Cnty.
  981 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over all plaintiffs, but that claims against the county and sheriff were adequately pleaded under § 1983.
• Williams v. Adams
  836 F.2d 958· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's actions were not a significant contributing cause of the plaintiff's arrest, thus summary judgment was appropriate.
• Barima Inv. Co., Inc. v. United States
  771 F. Supp. 1187· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff's inverse condemnation claim was not ripe for adjudication because the plaintiff failed to utilize available state procedures for obtaining compensation.
• Hernandez v. Denton
  919 F.2d 573· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 4×
• Wayman L. Prince v. Poulos
  876 F.2d 30· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice as a sanction for discovery abuse, and that the awards of attorney's fees and costs were proper.
• Simmons v. Sheriff Wayne McELVEEN
  846 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendants' conduct, while potentially negligent, did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Hewlett v. Davis
  844 F.2d 109· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that monetary sanctions were appropriate for discovery violations, dismissal for failure to prosecute was justified, and post-verdict discovery was permissible, but the district court erred in remanding a motion to state court instead of hearing it.
• Kitchens v. Tex. Dep't OF Human Res.
  747 F.2d 985· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from exercising pendent jurisdiction over state-law claims for money damages against a state agency.
• Peden v. Stephens
  50 F.4th 972· 11th Cir.· 2022-08-29 ·cited 3×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in certifying a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) because there was no just reason for delay, thus the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Fla. Country Clubs, Inc. v. Carlton
  98 F. Supp. 2d 1356· M.D. Fla.· 2000-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to establish state action by Carlton Fields, a private entity, and therefore could not proceed with their Section 1983 claim against them. Motions related to Partyka were denied as moot due to a settlement.
• Wildauer v. Frederick Cnty.
  993 F.2d 369· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to amend the complaint or in granting summary judgment for the defendants, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Sparks v. The Character & Fitness Comm. OF Ky.
  818 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 2×
  Officials performing quasi-judicial duties related to bar admissions, even if not judges, are entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
• Carestio v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty.
  79 F. Supp. 2d 1347· S.D. Fla.· 1999-11-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that where a state provides adequate civil and criminal remedies for excessive corporal punishment, federal courts should not address claims of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and should remand pendent state law claims.
• Majette v. Butterworth
  603 F. Supp. 22· S.D. Fla.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 1×
  The court denied motions to strike and for default judgment, granted dismissal for claims against the defendant in his official capacity due to lack of notice, but denied dismissal for claims against him in his individual capacity.
• Noel v. Westlake Fin. Servs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-07
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, a prerequisite for injunctive relief.
• Smitherman v. Quaintance
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-31
  The court denied the defendants' motion for certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Turner v. Homestead Police Dep't
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-02-10
  The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting summary judgment for all defendants and closing the case.
• Bloom v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  816 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 2011-09-16
  The court held that the state defendants' motions to dismiss should be granted in part, finding insufficient service for some claims, failure to comply with sovereign immunity notice requirements, and entitlement to qualified immunity for federal claims against Officer Reynolds.