Civil Rights Complaint (Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

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

• Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz
  670 F.2d 440· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 104×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) should be construed narrowly, limiting appellate jurisdiction to review only independently appealable orders, not ancillary ones.
• Rivera v. Allin
  144 F.3d 719· 11th Cir.· 1998-06-23 ·cited 90×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the "three strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) is constitutional. The court found no violations of the First Amendment right to access the courts, the separation of powers doctrine, the Fifth Amendme
• Landrigan v. City OF Warwick
  628 F.2d 736· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 85×
  The court held that a § 1983 claim for false arrest must be stayed pending resolution of the related state criminal charge, and that municipalities cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely on a respondeat superior theory.
• Donovan v. Reinbold
  433 F.2d 738· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-05 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for civil rights actions in California is three years, and that public attorneys are not immune from liability for advising disregard of administrative orders. The court also affirmed the damages award for emotional distress.
• Boothe v. Hammock
  605 F.2d 661· 2d Cir.· 1979-09-14 ·cited 54×
  The court held that New York's parole statutes do not create a protectible expectation of parole under the Due Process Clause, as interpreted by Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex.
• Dewey v. The Univ. OF NEW Hampshire
  694 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-26 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations in Count I were too conclusory to state a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment, and that the remaining counts were properly dismissed as time-barred.
• Duncan v. Nelson
  466 F.2d 939· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while a plaintiff cannot recover damages for conviction and incarceration resulting from an improperly admitted involuntary confession, they may still pursue a claim for harm suffered due to the unlawful interrogation itself.
• Cruz v. Lyman Cardwell
  486 F.2d 550· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-31 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the pro se complaint stated a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage.
• Shipp v. Hardin E. Todd
  568 F.2d 133· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-10 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a state court clerk has quasi-judicial immunity from damages but not from suits for injunctive relief, and federal courts have the power to expunge criminal records.
• Harris v. Menendez
  817 F.2d 737· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 29×
  The court holds that the plaintiff's claims are barred by absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity and that the remaining allegations are conclusory, failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Miller v. Barilla
  549 F.2d 648· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 26×
  Public defenders are accorded absolute immunity from § 1983 damage claims for acts done in the performance of their judicial function, specifically including plea bargaining.
• Getty v. Reed
  547 F.2d 971· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the complaints, but that the due process claims in Collis' case were insubstantial. Getty's due process claims were also insubstantial, but his First Amendment claim required further consideration.
• Cruz v. Skelton
  543 F.2d 86· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a prisoner's mere expectation of parole is not a 'grievous loss' triggering constitutional due process protections, and the Equal Protection Clause does not require appointment of counsel for indigent parole applicants.
• In re Epps
  888 F.2d 964· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Northern District's Fee Order was unlawfully applied to Epps, and he may file his suit upon payment of a reduced fee of $6.
• Wright v. EL Paso Cnty. Jail
  642 F.2d 134· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-08 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's allegations of deliberate indifference to attacks by fellow inmates and inhumane living conditions are sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Washington v. James
  782 F.2d 1134· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint alleging intentional violation of his right to reasonable access to the courts and legal mail, including the unauthorized opening of outgoing legal mail, is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
• Williams v. Polk Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  192 F. Supp. 3d 1353· M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-20 ·cited 18×
  A governmental entity is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based solely on respondeat superior; liability requires proof of an official policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation.
• Alexander v. Ware
  714 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 18×
  A prisoner's civil rights complaint challenging a prison's disciplinary system for procedural due process violations is not barred by the habeas corpus exclusivity rule, even if it impacts good time credit.
• Branch v. Lt. Randall A. Martin
  886 F.2d 1043· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-04 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court failed to conduct the required de novo review of the magistrate's findings because it did not review the evidentiary hearing transcript or tape recording.
• Dreibelbis v. Marks
  675 F.2d 579· 3d Cir.· 1982-04-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the inmate's civil rights complaint as frivolous without a sufficient factual record.
• Smith v. C.D. White
  857 F.2d 1042· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a pro se inmate's timely filed notice of appeal, though initially returned by the clerk for a certificate of service, was valid as to him. The court also held that the notice was ineffective for other plaintiffs who did not sign it.
• Williams v. Willits
  853 F.2d 586· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the civil rights complaint, finding no constitutional deprivation of rights by the prison staff and no actionable claim against the director and warden.
• Imam ALI Abdullah Akbar v. Canney
  634 F.2d 339· 6th Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 16×
  Prison officials are not constitutionally required to change their records to reflect a prisoner's adopted name.
• Russell v. Oliver
  552 F.2d 115· 4th Cir.· 1977-03-14 ·cited 16×
• Gill v. Mooney
  824 F.2d 192· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 15×
  The court held that while many of the prisoner's claims were properly dismissed, several allegations stated colorable claims for relief under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Wagner v. Higgins
  754 F.2d 186· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims, including those for theft of property, were properly dismissed because they were subject to the Parratt doctrine, which requires exhaustion of state post-deprivation remedies for random and unauthorized deprivations of property.
• Giulini v. Blessing
  654 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1981-07-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the civil rights complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but that abstention under Younger v. Harris was appropriate for declaratory and injunctive relief due to pending state criminal proceedings.
• Bass v. Franklin Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  N.D. Fla.· 2026-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court recommended dismissal of the case because the plaintiff failed to prosecute and comply with a court order.
• Bilal Muhammad ALI v. Higgs
  892 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a civil rights action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is barred by the statute of limitations, and the dismissal should be with prejudice.
• Satchell v. Dilworth
  745 F.2d 781· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it was error to grant summary judgment to a defendant on an unpleaded affirmative defense and that a pro se plaintiff should have been afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint.
• Nelson v. Stratton
  469 F.2d 1155· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-20 ·cited 11×
  A retained attorney is not acting under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Brooks v. Warden Mike Dutton
  751 F.2d 197· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the district court erred in denying the inmate's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint as frivolous was proper because the inmate failed to exhaust available state remedies for his property loss claim.
• Qualls v. Shaw
  535 F.2d 318· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-19 ·cited 10×
  The district court erred in dismissing the complaint as the inmate was not challenging his conviction but rather seeking access to records.
• Hopkins v. Collins
  548 F.2d 503· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-29 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a full hearing is not a necessary procedural due process requirement for prison newspaper censorship.
• Moore v. Mabus
  976 F.2d 268· 5th Cir.· 1992-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the dismissal of the civil rights complaint under § 1915(d) was improper due to the complexity of the issues and the need for further factual and legal development, but affirmed the dismissal of the privacy and loss of privileges claims.
• Eugenio L. Rodriguez v. Holmes
  963 F.2d 799· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for the pro se litigant's civil rights action was tolled during the pendency of his state court proceedings, and therefore the action was timely filed.
• Davis v. Bryan
  810 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte based on the statute of limitations and in failing to notify parties of the conversion from a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.
• Reddin v. Israel
  561 F.2d 715· 7th Cir.· 1977-09-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because material issues of fact remained regarding whether the detainer deprived the prisoner of a protected liberty interest without due process.
• Broderick v. The Associated Hosp. Serv. OF Philadelphia
  536 F.2d 1· 3d Cir.· 1976-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the mere statutory requirement for state approval of rates and contracts by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, without more, is insufficient to establish "state action" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the challenged discriminatory enrollment policies were privately formu
• Munera v. Metro W. Detention Ctr.
  351 F. Supp. 2d 1353· S.D. Fla.· 2004-12-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendant officer is entitled to qualified immunity on the claims of excessive force and verbal abuse, and that summary judgment is appropriate.
• Medina v. Minerva
  907 F. Supp. 379· M.D. Fla.· 1995-11-21 ·cited 7×
  A prisoner's claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which challenges the validity of their conviction or sentence, is premature and must be dismissed if the conviction or sentence has not yet been invalidated.
• Osterback v. McDonough
  549 F. Supp. 2d 1337· M.D. Fla.· 2008-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court found that while CM staff received adequate training, the occasional failure of some officers to adhere to that training by ignoring bona fide psychological emergencies, when combined with other factors, could rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.
• McKINNEY v. Anderson
  959 F.2d 853· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-27 ·cited 6×
  The court reinstated its prior decision, holding that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) at levels posing an unreasonable risk of harm constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and remanded for further proceedings to determine if prison officials acted with deliberate
• Shabazz v. Barnauskas
  600 F. Supp. 712· M.D. Fla.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prison's no-beard regulation, as applied to an inmate at a maximum security prison, does not violate the First Amendment.
• Matz v. Kelsch
  638 F.2d 48· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the inmate's interest in work release was not a constitutionally protected liberty interest and that the parole board's procedures were fair and satisfied due process standards.
• Espinoza v. Thoma
  580 F.2d 346· 8th Cir.· 1978-08-02 ·cited 6×
  A no-spouse employment policy, interpreted to include individuals living in an 'espoused relationship' (cohabitation), is a reasonable classification that bears a fair and substantial relationship to the employer's objective of preventing workplace conflicts and is not unconstitu
• Thibodeaux v. State OF S.D.
  553 F.2d 558· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's summary dismissal of the inmate's complaint was premature and unwarranted due to the prison censorship board's deficient findings.
• Jackson v. Dixon
  2025 WL 1923126· N.D. Fla.· 2025-08-08 ·cited 5×
  A prisoner's failure to truthfully disclose prior litigation history on a court form constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, warranting dismissal of the complaint.
• Lemon v. Dugger
  931 F.2d 1465· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 5×
  The court held that prison officials' claim of probable cause to read inmate legal mail did not override the inmate's constitutional right to have such mail unread, and that the trial court properly denied motions based on this claim.
• Escobar v. Crosby
  363 F. Supp. 2d 1361· S.D. Fla.· 2005-03-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights suit, and failure to do so mandates dismissal.