Municipal Liability Under § 1983

434 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Local NO. 1903 OF the Int'l Union v. Bear Archery
  617 F.2d 157· 6th Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 2×
  A local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents; liability attaches when execution of a government's policy or custom causes the injury.
• Dominguez v. Beame
  603 F.2d 337· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against the arresting officers because the officers' belief that the arrest was supported by probable cause was not objectively reasonable.
• Garnet Vinson v. Richmond Police Dept.
  567 F.2d 263· 4th Cir.· 1977-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 action against the named defendants because neither the Police Department nor the Commonwealth Attorney are proper defendants under § 1983, and any claims against individual officers would be time-barred.
• Frankes v. City of Boynton Beach
  6 F. Supp. 3d 1331· S.D. Fla.· 2026-02-05 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the officers' entry into the home was justified by exigent circumstances and that they were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, including a protective sweep and a Terry stop.
• Washington v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families
  595 F. Supp. 2d 1291· M.D. Fla.· 2009-01-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the alleged tortious acts and resulting injuries occurred in Ohio, not Florida, and the plaintiff's conspiracy allegations were too vague to establish jurisdiction.
• Battista v. Cannon
  934 F. Supp. 400· M.D. Fla.· 1996-07-24 ·cited 1×
  A sheriff can be held liable for a deputy's misconduct if the sheriff's own policies or customs, or failure to investigate or supervise, were the moving force behind the constitutional violation, and sovereign immunity does not bar claims based on operational negligence.
• Hammer v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  927 F. Supp. 1540· M.D. Fla.· 1996-06-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the County had sufficient identity of interest with the Commission to satisfy Title VII's notice requirements for subject matter jurisdiction, and that the Commission could be considered an agent of the County for purposes of liability. However, the court foun
• Smith v. Avino
  866 F. Supp. 1399· S.D. Fla.· 1994-10-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the county manager had final policy-making authority, making the county potentially liable under § 1983, and that the curfew was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague.
• Brown v. City of Margate
  842 F. Supp. 515· S.D. Fla.· 1993-12-29 ·cited 1×
  The court denied defendants' post-trial motions, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its rulings.
• Colvin v. Curtis
  860 F. Supp. 1503· M.D. Fla.· 1993-07-30 ·cited 1×
  The court denied defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and punitive damages against the Sheriff, but granted the motion in part regarding the battery claim's jury instructions. The court also referred attorney's fees to a magistra
• Hinton v. City OF Elwood
  997 F.2d 774· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the arresting officers' use of force did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, and therefore affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appellant's claims against the officers and the city.
• Gillette v. Delmore
  979 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-10 ·cited 1×
  A municipality cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a subordinate's discretionary constitutional violation simply because a policymaker failed to overrule it. Such inaction does not constitute ratification or establish a policy or custom.
• WAM Props., Inc. v. Desoto Cnty.
  758 F. Supp. 1468· M.D. Fla.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently alleged violations of constitutional rights and that a municipal policy or custom caused the deprivation, thus denying the motion to dismiss.
• Dees v. City of Miami
  747 F. Supp. 679· S.D. Fla.· 1990-09-12 ·cited 1×
  Summary judgment is granted for defendants because reasonable officers could have believed probable cause existed for the arrest and prosecution, and supervisory defendants did not directly cause the constitutional deprivation.
• Neighborhood Action Coal. v. City OF Canton
  882 F.2d 1012· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that plaintiffs need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a Title VI claim and that municipalities can be sued under Section 1983. The court also found the plaintiff association had standing for injunctive relief but not damages.
• Phillips v. City of Hanceville
  11th Cir.· 2026-08-04
  Officers Duncan and Howell had probable cause to arrest Phillips for disorderly conduct and trespass, the force used during arrest and in the booking room was de minimis and reasonable, and the City is not liable absent a constitutional violation.
• Duarte v. Trooper Javier Rivera and Florida Highway Patrol
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-16
  The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the Florida Highway Patrol is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment and that Trooper Rivera is entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims.
• Anderson v. Centurion of Fla. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-15
  Former and current female inmates at a Florida correctional facility sued medical contractor Centurion under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging sexual assaults by one of its physicians, Dr. Ader Benoit, during gynecological appointments violated their Eighth Amendment rights and that Cen
• Smothers v. Childers
  11th Cir.· 2025-11-20
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the county had a policy that violated the decedent's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care.
• Natacha Jean-Francois v. The City of N. Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead municipal liability under Section 1983 and failed to establish the conditions precedent for her Title VII claims, warranting dismissal.
• Dziadik v. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-13
  The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice and granted the motion to strike the supplemental second amended complaint.
• Eli Schanley v. City of Sarasota
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-31
  A police officer employed by the City of Sarasota alleged she was terminated because of her transgender status and gender dysphoria, bringing claims for gender and disability discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, due process violations, and retaliation under Title VII and
• Rodriguez v. City of Port Richey
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-23
  The court recommended denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Lexus Daniels v. Tampa Police Dep't
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-20
  The court held that the Tampa Police Department is not a proper defendant under § 1983 and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for municipal liability or underlying constitutional violations. However, the pro se plaintiff is granted one final opportunity to amend her compl
• 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.
• 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.
• Durance v. The Sch. Bd. of Glades Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-04
  The court held that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and FCRA, and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, but failed to state claims for retaliation under the ADA, FCRA, and First Amendment.
• Kelly v. Centurion of Florida
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-07-14
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against any of the defendants under the Eighth Amendment.
• Knight v. City of Winter Park
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-30
  The court recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend.
• Curry v. Lee Cnty. Jails Core Bldg.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim because it does not sufficiently allege extreme conditions or deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, nor does it identify a custom or policy causing the alleged harm.
• Venisee v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-28
  The court held that Sergeant Marckioli is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and even if it were not, the right was not clearly established.
• Lincoln v. United States Homeland Prisoner Transp. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-23
  The court dismissed all claims against Ellis County with prejudice and severed and transferred remaining claims against the transport company, finding further amendment unwarranted.
• Leiphart v. Warrick
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-04-29
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the judge are barred by absolute judicial immunity and the claims against the county are frivolous due to lack of responsibility and insufficient allegations.
• Lewis v. Aldi Inc
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-04-24
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state plausible federal claims under the ADA and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and therefore should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
• Grant v. City of W. Palm Beach
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-22
  The court held that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the arrest, and that the use of force was excessive, denying dismissal for these claims. However, the court dismissed the vicarious liability and negligent hiring/retention claims against the City
• Ornes v. Humphries
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-07
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because his allegations of cell door rattling did not establish an objective substantial risk of serious harm or a sufficiently culpable state of mind, nor did he allege official policy as the moving
• Brown v. Does
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-24
  The court held that the plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County and Sheriff, and thus, the motions to dismiss were granted.
• Clark v. Collier Cnty. Sheriff Kevin Rambosk
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-24
  The court held that the deputy had probable cause for the arrest based on a modified exhaust violation and resisting arrest, thus granting qualified immunity and dismissing the § 1983 claims.
• Lanza v. City of Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-02-11
  The court recommended granting the City's motion to dismiss, finding both the § 1983 claim and the wrongful death claim failed to state a plausible claim for relief.
• Sevilla v. Manatee Cnty. Sheriff
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-31
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for excessive force and that the Sheriff's Office was not a suable entity.
• 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.
• Baker v. Shelly
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-03
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants.
• Awolowo v. Carlisle
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-12-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
• Lewis v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-12-19
  The court held that some claims, including deliberate indifference and First Amendment retaliation, could proceed, while others, particularly policy-based claims against supervisory officials and entities, were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
• Cowart v. Duro
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-17
  The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint, which relied on criminal statutes and failed to comply with pleading rules and prior court orders, should be dismissed without prejudice.
• Cannon v. Chase
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-12-04
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the police department and officers, warranting dismissal.
• Lopez v. City of Opa-Locka
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-12-02
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient factual allegations to plausibly establish a municipal policy or custom that was the moving force behind her alleged constitutional deprivations under section 1983.
• Helman v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-19
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not identify responsible individuals or allege a custom or policy causing the deprivation of rights.
• Lawshe v. Hardwick
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-29
  The court held that the Sheriff's motion to dismiss should be granted because the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the Sheriff's Office had a policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court also found that Dr. Dully's motion to dismiss shoul
• Roe v. Fryer
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-25
  Travis Roe sued Sheriff Michelle Cook and Deputies Clint Redmond and Mark Maertz for excessive force and related claims arising from his arrest in August 2020 for murder. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the excessive force and failure to intervene