42 U.S.C. § 1983

12,720 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 456 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Dusty Lee Bowman v. Dixon
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-08
  The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Pike v. City of Fort Pierce
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-07
  The court recommended denial of the plaintiff's motions for temporary restraining orders because he failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) regarding immediate and irreparable injury and proper notice certification.
• Eliahu Abukasis v. Eli Ran
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-07
  The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction and comply with pleading requirements, warranting dismissal.
• Grimage v. Doctor Angel Acevedo
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-06
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment and due process, as the allegations were conclusory and lacked specific factual support.
• Buggs v. Lieutenant J. Durant and FDC Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-06
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, as the allegations were too vague and conclusory to establish excessive force or deliberate indifference to medical needs.
• Demetrious Hogan v. Blackwater River FCI Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-06
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the named defendants were not proper parties and the alleged deprivation of property did not violate due process as a meaningful post-deprivation remedy was available under state la
• Jackson v. Brown
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-02
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim because it contained only vague and conclusory allegations, not meeting federal pleading standards.
• Hightower v. Nappi
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-02
  A public defender or conflict counsel does not act under color of state law when performing traditional legal functions, thus precluding a § 1983 claim against them.
• Pepe v. Villabolos
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-02
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was deficient as a shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, particularly for the federal claims.
• Bishop v. City of Boynton Beach
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-01
  The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the amended complaint without prejudice, allowing the pro se plaintiff one more opportunity to file a second amended complaint that corrects deficiencies.
• Khalilah Omar v. Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Sch. Dist.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-30
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law because the allegations did not establish a constitutional violation, a custodial relationship, or conduct that shocks the conscience, and state law claims were barred by sovereign
• Warren v. Devanguardia
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-26
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting defendants' motions to dismiss in part.
• Perez v. Aventura Police Dep't
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-26
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
• Lorusso v. Sec'y of Fla. Families & Child. Servs.
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-09-26 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings is subject to Younger abstention, and claims regarding conditions of confinement must be brought as a civil rights action.
• Watkins v. Officer Lawrence Davis
  11th Cir.· 2025-09-25
  Police officers violated a civilian's Fourth Amendment rights when they fired four shots at her car during a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion, proper identification, or warning, according to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The court affirmed denial of qualified im
• Dvoinik v. Dworkin
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-09-25
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, finding no clear error in the denial of discovery, amendment, or sanctions, and agreeing that the plaintiff failed to state claims for discrimination or due process violations.
• Juymohan v. Sandall
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-24
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations failed to state a plausible claim for an Eighth Amendment violation or retaliation under § 1983.
• Hill v. Brock
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-24
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and therefore his amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
• Swann v. Cook
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-24
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant deputies' actions caused or contributed to the decedent's death, and that the Sheriff could not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior or for a policy of deliberate indifference.
• Hatcher v. Eckhart
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-24
  The pro se inmate's civil rights complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Lorch v. Jones
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim because the allegations were too vague and conclusory to meet federal pleading standards.
• Holmes v. Fuller
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-23
  The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint was procedurally deficient and dismissed it without prejudice, but granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed an opportunity to amend.
• Colosi v. Charlotte Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-22 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing, the case was ripe, and not moot, denying the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Clark v. Bell
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-22
  The court held that the defendant detective was entitled to qualified immunity because he had arguable probable cause for the arrest and any alleged misstatements or omissions in the affidavit were not material enough to violate the Fourth Amendment.
• Clark v. Bell
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that the defendant detective was entitled to qualified immunity because he had arguable probable cause for the arrest and any alleged misstatements or omissions in the affidavit were not material enough to violate the Fourth Amendment.
• Robinson v. Payne
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that a full forensic examination of the decedent's cellphones was not warranted due to the moving party's failure to meet local standards for exceptional circumstances and overbroad requests, but ordered limited production of call logs and text messages.
• Robledo v. City of Tampa
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and the detention was reasonable under the circumstances.
• Gomez v. Koffinas
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that defendants must first seek disclosure of state grand jury materials from the state court that supervised the grand jury, due to principles of federalism and comity.
• Hall v. Harris
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and denied the motion for default judgment.
• Sannella v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that the amended complaint was due to be dismissed as a shotgun pleading and for failure to state a claim, but granted plaintiff leave to amend claims against one defendant.
• Mitchell v. Doe
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that the prisoner's complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim because the defendant responded reasonably to the alleged risk.
• Jenkins v. Aigner
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-09-18
  The court recommended dismissal of the civil action because the plaintiff's amended complaint constituted a "shotgun pleading" violating federal rules and contained multiple legally frivolous claims.
• Whitfield v. Brady
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-18
  The court held that the plaintiff's pro se civil rights complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and thus was dismissed without prejudice.
• Harvey v. Dixon
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-09-18
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims challenging his sex offender registration and probation conditions were barred by the statute of limitations and, in the alternative, failed on the merits or should have been brought as a habeas corpus petition.
• Gibson v. Idleberg
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-18 ·via Section 1983
  The court held that a second amended complaint filed without leave was properly stricken, and that the plaintiff's allegations of a jail officer using fecal matter on handcuffs stated claims for deliberate indifference and excessive force, thus denying qualified immunity at the m
• Cross v. Hott
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-17
  A prisoner's civil rights complaint alleging false disciplinary reports and procedural issues in grievance processes fails to state a claim if it does not allege a constitutional deprivation or a physical injury.
• Nelson v. Gualtieri
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-17
  The court granted the motions to substitute the Estate of Waheed Nelson as plaintiff, finding the motions were timely filed and that the causes of action survive the plaintiff's death.
• Ricketts v. Baker Cnty. Sheriff
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-17
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the Baker County Sheriff Facility, the Baker County Sheriff, and ICE because the jail facility is not a suable entity, the Sheriff is not liable without personal involvement, and ICE is a federal agency not subject
• Nute v. Bryant White
  11th Cir.· 2025-09-16
  An officer present at the scene who fails to take reasonable steps to protect a victim of another officer's excessive force can be held liable for nonfeasance, even if the assaulting officers are from a different agency.
• Guerrero Lozano v. Collier Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-15
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under the Eighth Amendment or the ADA because he did not sufficiently allege an objective risk of serious harm, deliberate indifference, or an underlying constitutional violation required for ADA damages.
• Fletcher v. Cartwright
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-11
  An inmate incarcerated in Florida sued four Department of Corrections employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive use of force and denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and under state law for assault and battery. The court dismissed all federal cla
• Lessor v. Mgmt. & Training Corp.
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-09-10
  A prisoner barred from proceeding in forma pauperis due to three prior dismissals must pay the filing fee or face dismissal, unless they allege imminent danger of serious physical injury.
• McCullough v. Speak
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-10
  The court granted the motion to dismiss the official capacity claims against Deputy Speak because the plaintiff did not oppose the motion and these claims were redundant to claims against the Sheriff.
• Vazquez v. Lee Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-09
  The court held that the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed all claims without prejudice due to insufficient factual allegations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims.
• Greene v. Harper
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-09
  The court held that a defendant already terminated as a party cannot be dismissed again, and a final judgment is inappropriate when claims were not adjudicated on the merits or dismissed with prejudice.
• Virtue v. Yes Care LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-08
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, as the physician exercised medical judgment and delays were for medical reasons, and thus summary judgment for the defendants was granted.
• Connell v. Centurion of Fla. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-08
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief against either defendant under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
• Perez v. Aventura Police Dep't
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-05
  The court recommended granting the motion to dismiss because the plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations, the police department is not a suable entity, and the plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing.
• Hanson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-03
  The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged a constitutional violation and a causal connection for her Eighth Amendment claim, and sufficiently alleged facts for her negligent supervision and retention claims, thus denying the motion to dismiss as to these claims.
• Borghese v. Waters
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-02
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient for failing to comply with procedural rules and for failing to state a plausible claim for relief, requiring an amended filing.