Action 'Under Color Of State Law'

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

• Moore v. City OF Paducah
  890 F.2d 831· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no direct evidence or reasonable inference of a conspiracy by the private citizen defendant.
• Cotter v. Desert Palace, Inc.
  880 F.2d 1142· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a significant possibility of irreparable injury or a fair chance of success on the merits.
• Murray v. Wal-Mart, Inc.
  874 F.2d 555· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Wal-Mart acted under color of state law for a § 1983 claim and that sufficient evidence supported claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Dante Todaro v. Bowman
  872 F.2d 43· 3d Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that summary judgment was improvidently granted because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the prisoner's confinement was punitive and whether prison regulations created a protected liberty interest.
• Barnard v. Young
  720 F.2d 1188· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 2×
  A private attorney using a state-authorized subpoena duces tecum to obtain medical records does not act under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Dykes v. Weinberg
  564 F. Supp. 536· M.D. Fla.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish state action for her Section 1983 claim and the defendant Weinberg was entitled to qualified immunity.
• Price v. Baker
  693 F.2d 952· 10th Cir.· 1982-12-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the sheriff competently discharged his duties and that his wife was not acting under color of state law when she struck the plaintiff.
• Mondragon v. Tenorio
  554 F.2d 423· 10th Cir.· 1977-05-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the actions of the Anton Chico Land Grant Trustees, as governed by New Mexico statutes, did not constitute action 'under color of state law' for the purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.
• Bd. OF Educ. OF Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 53 OF Okla. Cnty. v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 52 OF Okla. Cnty.
  532 F.2d 730· 10th Cir.· 1976-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the transfer of territory did not violate constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the plaintiff district was not racially identifiable, was already integrated, and the defendants did not act under color of state law.
• Sheppard v. The E. W. Scripps Co.
  421 F.2d 555· 6th Cir.· 1970-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the coroner's actions were protected by quasi-judicial immunity, thus the Civil Rights Act claim must fail.
• Fonda v. Gray
  707 F.2d 435· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 1×
• Holton v. Fla. Dep't of Revenue
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-16
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint without leave to amend, denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
• 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.
• Murphy v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Gov't Auth.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-15
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint, which failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 by interweaving multiple claims and circumstances, must be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim.
• Wood v. Racetrack LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-18
  A pretrial detainee filed a § 1983 civil rights action against a private business and two law enforcement agencies. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because the private defendant did not act under color of state law and the police departments are not
• Pons v. Caraf Oil Gas Station
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-03
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis must state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires alleging a deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.
• Haner v. Homminga
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-05-16
  The court recommended transferring the case to the District of Arizona because it is a more convenient forum, as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there and the Northern District of Florida lacks personal jurisdiction over the City of Phoenix.
• Smith Jr. v. Poveda
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-13
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983.
• LaHanse v. Abrahamsen
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-13
  A prisoner's § 1983 claim for damages from an allegedly unlawful search and seizure must be dismissed if a judgment in their favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of their conviction or sentence, unless that conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.
• Bensouna v. E11Even Miami, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-09
  The court granted the motion for reconsideration, finding that newly discovered evidence of coordination between the defendant and law enforcement could establish state action for a federal claim.
• Shockley v. Hard Rock Hotel & Casino
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-04
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff's civil-rights complaint failed to state a viable claim because it did not allege personal participation by defendants, did not establish state action, and improperly attempted to sue under federal criminal statutes.
• McCarthy v. Pods Enters., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-16
  The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Stallings v. Walmart
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-07-25
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
• Evans v. Rozas
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-21
  The court held that claims against the prosecutor and defense counsel are dismissed with prejudice, while claims against law enforcement officers are dismissed without prejudice pending amendment.
• Smith v. Conte Jail Facility
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-05-05
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff's civil rights complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is frivolous, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
• King v. Dieppa
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-12-05
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint was deficient for failing to state a cognizable § 1983 claim and for being an impermissible shotgun pleading, but granted leave to amend.
• Hall v. Deas
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-11-23
  A private individual who reports alleged criminal activity to the police and testifies in court does not act 'under color of state law' for purposes of a § 1983 claim, even if their actions lead to a prosecution and acquittal.
• Robinson v. Sabin
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-03-12
  A pro se plaintiff's complaint is dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, even with liberal construction.
• Barmapov-Segev v. City of Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-11-20
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing several counts against the City based on sovereign immunity and duplicative claims, but allowing others to proceed.
• Bensch v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  855 F. Supp. 351· S.D. Fla.· 1994-04-11
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege an affirmative causal connection between SFWMD's actions and the alleged constitutional deprivation, warranting dismissal of the Section 1983 claim.
• Phelps v. Dunn
  965 F.2d 93· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-28
  The court held that the plaintiff's affidavit was insufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding Rev. Edwards' barring of the plaintiff from attending religious services.
• Skelton v. Pri-Cor, Inc.
  963 F.2d 100· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-21
  A private corporation operating a detention facility under contract with a county acts under color of state law for § 1983 purposes, but denying an inmate a hardcover Bible is permissible if a softcover version is allowed and the restriction is reasonably related to legitimate pe
• LEE v. Town OF Estes Park
  820 F.2d 1112· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-05
  The court held that a private individual reporting suspected criminal activity to police, who then exercise their own judgment, does not constitute acting under color of state law for § 1983 liability. The court also affirmed summary judgment for other defendants based on lack of
• Hancich v. Gopoian
  815 F.2d 883· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-08
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the Connecticut summary eviction statute is not facially infirm, and any alleged deprivation of property is premature.
• Kempf v. R. & E. Transit Co.
  588 F.2d 1206· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-20
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege state or federal action.
• Lansdown v. Worthey
  458 F.2d 485· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-24
  The court held that a private physician acting without state involvement or contract is not liable under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 for failing to provide medical care to inmates.
• Palacios v. Foltz
  441 F.2d 1196· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-10
  The court held that the school principal and vice principal's refusal to allow a student to run for student council co-president was not a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because their actions were not taken 'under color of state law' and the right to run for student office is not
• Carroll. v. Andrews
  438 F.2d 1221· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-24
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3) because it lacked an allegation of action under color of state law.
• Hill v. Am. Express Money Order Co.
  408 F.2d 655· 9th Cir.· 1969-02-14
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint failed to allege denial of federal rights under color of state law.