-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-05
A judge and prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from damages for their official acts, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply to individuals or provide immunity from criminal prosecution.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-23
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to prosecutorial immunity, the non-state actor status of public defenders, and Younger abstention.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-02-22
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and sought monetary relief against immune defendants, thus denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice, granting one opportunity to amend.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-01
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the defendants were immune from suit or the claims were otherwise deficient.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-01-22
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint must be dismissed because the defendants are immune from suit and the claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-12-19
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim, names improper defendants entitled to immunity, and raises an improper claim for excessive bail under § 1983. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis was also denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-11-27
The court held that claims against the Sheriff's Office, a judge, a public defender, and a state attorney are dismissed with prejudice due to lack of capacity to sue or immunity, while claims against officers are dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege lack of probable
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-11-08
The court denied the plaintiff's objections and demands for reconsideration because they failed to meet the high standards required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b).
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-10-31
The court held that a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be denied and the complaint dismissed with prejudice because the plaintiff's claims against the former prosecutor are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity, rendering any amendment futile.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-10-04
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was due to be dismissed without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-29
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint must be dismissed because it constitutes a shotgun pleading, is barred by the Younger doctrine, and the defendants are entitled to immunity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-22
The court held that the plaintiff's claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and were therefore dismissed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-31
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because probation violation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions and did not terminate in his favor. Additionally, civilian defendants are not state actors an
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-16
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, Younger abstention, and judicial/prosecutorial immunity, and that there was no constitutional right to law library access for pro se litigants.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-08-01
The court held that defendants are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the plaintiff was detained pursuant to a facially valid court order.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-22
The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the District Court of the Virgin Islands.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-15
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not allege lack of probable cause for arrests or favorable termination of criminal proceedings, and certain defendants were immune from suit.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-09
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because probation violation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions and did not terminate in his favor, and civilian defendants are not state actors, while prose
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-07
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was subject to dismissal under the PLRA.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-01
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and further amendment would be futile.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-05-10
The court held that the City's interpretation of its zoning ordinance was impermissible, and genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim and the counterclaim. The court granted summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-03
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under § 1983 for denial of equal protection, Eighth Amendment rights, or due process regarding DNA evidence comparison, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-22
The court held that the amended complaint must be dismissed because it is incomprehensible and seeks damages from state officials who are absolutely immune.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-15
The court held that the defendants are entitled to dismissal based on various immunity doctrines and failure to state a claim.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-03
A prosecutor is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken in her prosecutorial capacity, and a claim challenging an arrest and prosecution is barred if it implies the invalidity of a conviction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-01
The court granted the defendants' motion to stay discovery and case management obligations pending a decision on the motions to dismiss.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-02-27
A pro se prisoner's complaint alleging Miranda violations, illegal search, false arrest, and malicious prosecution is dismissed because Miranda violations are not actionable under § 1983, prosecutors are immune, and remaining claims are barred by Younger abstention and Heck v. Hu
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-12-20
The court held that the pro se complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was therefore dismissed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-12-09
The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the judge, public defender, and prosecutor failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to immunity doctrines and lack of factual support for conspiracy allegations.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-11-30
The court held that all defendants are immune from suit or not state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, requiring dismissal of the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-10-14
Claims against former Sheriff Mike Williams and State Attorney Melissa Nelson are dismissed without prejudice, as Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for relief against them.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-08-16
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the PLRA and various constitutional amendments.
-
11th Cir.·
2022-07-18
Absolute prosecutorial immunity does not protect a prosecutor for failing to take action to cancel a material witness warrant after the judicial proceeding has concluded.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-07-11
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim against any defendant and must be dismissed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-05-06
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's amended complaint must be dismissed because the action is barred by Younger abstention, Heck v. Humphrey, and prosecutorial immunity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-05-03
The court held that a prisoner's § 1983 claims must not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and certain defendants are immune or lack capacity to be sued.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-04-27
The court held that the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against all defendants and is dismissed with prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-04-27
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the court should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-17
The court held that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present evidence of genuine disputes of material fact and the defendants are protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-30
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to vague and conclusory allegations, and dismissed it without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-16
The court held that prosecutors are immune from suit for actions taken in their prosecutorial capacity and that unrelated claims against different defendants cannot be joined in a single action.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-13
The court held that judges and prosecutors are immune from suit, and court-appointed attorneys are not state actors for § 1983 claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-06
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to insufficient factual allegations and naming improper defendants.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-19
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed because the malicious prosecution claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, the due process claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity, and the state law claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-01
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the state court's denial of his claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law, or based on an unreasonable determination of facts.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-05-24
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were either barred by Heck v. Humphrey or insufficiently pleaded, warranting dismissal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-01
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, dismissing claims against the judge and state attorney with prejudice and others without prejudice, allowing amendment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-03-05
The court granted the motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs failed to respond, and the claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity, sovereign immunity, and lack of standing.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-16
Plaintiff's false arrest claim (Count I) was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege the essential elements of a false arrest claim under Florida law, including that the arrest was unreasonable and not warranted by the circumstances, and because Plaintiff did not allege that