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

• Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. of Fla., Inc. v. Baker Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-11
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege a constitutional violation regarding the postponement of legal visits, and that the defendant Baker County Corrections Management Corporation was not a necessary party and was dismissed.
• Cloutier v. Pesata
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-11
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
• Allen v. Sutton
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-10
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of being served food on moldy trays do not constitute an objectively serious deprivation, nor do they plausibly suggest the defendant acted with subjective recklessness, thus failing to state an Eighth Amendment claim.
• Clark v. Dep't of Child. & Fam's. Fla.
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-10
  The court held that the Department of Children and Family's Florida (DCF) is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and the plaintiff's claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Norman v. Bowden
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-10
  The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice.
• Clark v. Hilly
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-10
  A lawyer performing traditional legal functions, even in a civil case, is not a state actor for purposes of a § 1983 claim, and the Sixth Amendment does not apply to civil proceedings.
• Clark v. Dep't of Child. & Fam's. Walton FL
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-10
  A pro se plaintiff's civil rights action against a state agency is barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and amendment would be futile.
• Williams v. The GEO Grp., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-10
  The court held that the Second Amended Complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment and Monell liability, warranting dismissal.
• Holt v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-09
  A municipality cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on respondeat superior; plaintiffs must plead a municipal custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation.
• Smith v. Alvarez
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-09
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently exhausted administrative remedies and adequately alleged state law claims to survive a motion to dismiss.
• Stephens v. UF Health of Jacksonville
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-06
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the Duval County Jail because jails are not suable entities under Florida law, and failed to state a claim against UF Health of Jacksonville because it was not alleged to be a state actor and HIPAA does not create
• Clark v. Dep't of Child. & Fam's. Fla.
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-05
  The court held that the Florida Department of Children and Families is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim.
• Clark v. Santa Rosa Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-05
  Plaintiff's claims for false arrest and false imprisonment are barred by Heck v. Humphrey because a judgment in her favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of her convictions, and the Sheriff's Department is not a suable entity under Florida law.
• Hillman v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-05
  The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice for failure to state a valid claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders.
• Hart v. Davis
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-04
  A prisoner who is a 'three-striker' and fails to pay the filing fee or demonstrate imminent danger of serious physical injury must have their case dismissed.
• Nealy v. Masters
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-04
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendants' deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, entitling the defendants to judgment as a matter of law.
• Jett v. Smith
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-03
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of a lack of heat in his jail cell, without more, did not rise to the level of an "extreme" condition that would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Heaven v. Tarquin
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-03
  A pretrial detainee barred by the three-strikes rule from proceeding in forma pauperis must pay the filing fee in full, and failure to do so requires dismissal.
• K&W Prop. Grp., LLC v. City of Temple Terrace
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-03
  The Court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for selective enforcement under the Equal Protection Clause because the proposed comparator property was not similarly situated and intentional discrimination was not plausibly alleged.
• Sampson v. Alachua Cnty. Jail
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court recommended dismissal of the civil rights case for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order.
• Hill v. Brock
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden to show the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies.
• Hybrid Pharma LLC v. Knispel
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that its proffered comparators were similarly situated, thus failing to state a 'class of one' equal protection claim.
• Barcelona v. Rundle
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied because his allegations did not satisfy the imminent danger exception to the three-strikes rule.
• Murnahan v. Orange Cnty. Court
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders.
• Griffin v. Calderon
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court held that the plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order was denied without prejudice because it failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 6.01.
• Smitherman v. Quaintance
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-29
  The court held that claims related to the Duquesne Drive home are time-barred, but claims related to the Cal Cove home are not time-barred due to the reversal of conviction. The malicious prosecution claim fails for lack of legal process.
• Moore v. Williams
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-28
  The court held that the federal law claims in Counts XVIII and XIX were duplicative and dismissed Count XVIII, the willful and wanton conduct claim in Count XX was barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed, and the indemnification claim in Count XXVII was dismissed.
• 114 E. Ocean LLC v. Town of Lantana
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-28
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for a Monell violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.
• Mobley-Weeks v. Gonzalez
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-28
  A prisoner must properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a Section 1983 action, and failure to do so mandates dismissal.
• Horn v. Mitchell
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-28
  A prisoner's civil rights complaint alleging constitutional violations during state criminal proceedings is properly dismissed with prejudice if the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, Heck v. Humphrey, or if the defendants are immune or not state actors.
• Brewer v. Okaloosa Cnty.
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-27
  The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice because the pro se plaintiff failed to comply with court orders regarding filing an amended complaint and proceeding in forma pauperis.
• Wright v. Brown
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-27
  The court recommended dismissal of the prisoner's civil rights complaint with prejudice and imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 and the All Writs Act due to his status as a 'three-striker' and the frivolous nature of his claims.
• Darling v. Zavaleta
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-27
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied because he failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure by not stating the issues he intends to present on appeal.
• McNichols v. Pemberton
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-26
  The court held that it must abstain from hearing the case under the Younger doctrine because the plaintiff's claims are intertwined with pending state criminal proceedings.
• Doe v. Hernando Cnty. Sch. Dist.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-26
  The parent and eight-year-old disabled student filed this discrimination suit against a school district and school officials, alleging physical abuse, failure to provide educational accommodations, and retaliation following complaints to authorities. The court granted the plainti
• Johnson v. Jones
  2023 WL 4358555· M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-23
  The court denied the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration because the arguments presented were either not grounds for reconsideration or did not establish extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling.
• Calisi v. Volusia Cnty. Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-23
  The court held that the complaint fails to state a claim because it names improper parties and lacks sufficient factual allegations for the remaining claims.
• Saintcy v. Fla. Dep't of Revenue Child Support Program
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-23
  The court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims against defendants in their official capacities due to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars claims seeking to invalidate state administrative orders.
• Hamman v. Univ. of Cent. Fla. Bd. of Trs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's objections were overruled, his motion to amend was denied, and his amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
• Pierre v. Johnson
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-22
  A defendant sued in their individual capacity lacks authority to provide injunctive relief for medical treatment, but a motion to dismiss punitive damages is premature.
• Vega v. Harris
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-22
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Dawson v. Frydrychowicz
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-22
  The court held that the defendant judge is entitled to judicial immunity, barring the plaintiff's claims.
• Pierre v. Hattaway
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-22
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the PLRA, necessitating dismissal of his claims.
• Demps v. Jones
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-22
  Summary judgment is granted for defendants Hanson and Kirby as Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of their presence or involvement. Summary judgment is denied regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies for other defendants, as naming all defendants is not required by FDOC
• Adderley v. Austin
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-22
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended notice of removal, construed as a complaint, was frivolous and failed to state a claim, and that removal was procedurally improper and untimely.
• Deppe v. Sovinski
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-21
  The district court overruled the plaintiff's objection to the magistrate judge's order granting a protective order and stay of discovery, finding the magistrate judge's decision was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
• Hodges v. Hunter
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-21
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for municipal liability under § 1983 for failure to train or supervise, and that the state law negligence claim was barred by sovereign immunity or failed to state a claim.
• Griffin v. Calderon
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-21
  The court held that the plaintiff's emergency request for a temporary restraining order was denied because it failed to meet the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 6.01.
• Daniels v. Taylor Corr. Inst.
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-21
  The court recommended dismissal of the case because the plaintiff failed to prosecute and comply with court orders.
• Perkins v. Bywater
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-19
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, or the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments, and recommended dismissal with leave to amend.