1,055 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,310 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-08
Federal court lacks jurisdiction to review state court rulings or grant relief against state judges and clerks for actions taken in their judicial capacities.
-
The court held that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend his complaint to add claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act against the Department of Corrections, as these claims were not futile when construed liberally.
-
The court held that a prisoner stated plausible Eighth Amendment sexual abuse and First Amendment retaliation claims, but not an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim.
-
A prisoner who is a 'three-striker' under the PLRA must pay the filing fee unless alleging imminent danger of serious physical injury, and failure to do so warrants dismissal without prejudice.
-
The court held that the prisoner's civil rights complaint was subject to dismissal due to improper venue, judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and failure to state a claim under Heck v. Humphrey.
-
The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that dismissal of the case without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders was appropriate.
-
The court held that while some of the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim or due to immunity, others, particularly those alleging excessive force after the plaintiff was subdued, could proceed.
-
The court held that transfer to the Southern District of Florida was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because it is a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, and the operative facts occurred there.
-
A pro se plaintiff cannot seek reconsideration of a voluntary dismissal under Rule 59(e) when no judgment was entered, and a Rule 60(b) motion is untimely and lacks valid grounds.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not properly grieving the alleged failure to protect claim within the required timeframes and with sufficient detail.
-
The court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding excessive force claims.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that Officer Collier was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and also entitled to state-agent immunity for the battery claim.
-
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents because the defendant failed to respond to the motion within the allotted time.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint seeking monetary damages against state employees in their official capacities must be dismissed for failure to state a claim due to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
-
The court held that the pro se complaint was deficient and must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, requiring the plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
A prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit, and failure to do so warrants dismissal.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and that compensatory damages were barred by statute.
-
The court held that a detention center is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that slip-and-fall incidents do not constitute constitutional claims actionable under that statute.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history on the court's required complaint form warrants dismissal without prejudice.
-
A state department of corrections is not a 'person' amenable to suit for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice with leave to amend due to insufficient financial information and the complaint being a shotgun pleading.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis, under a pseudonym, and for referral to the Volunteer Attorney Program, requiring an amended complaint.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for a constitutional violation regarding jail visitation.
-
A pro se prisoner's civil rights case can be dismissed without prejudice for failing to accurately disclose prior litigation history on the court-approved complaint form, even if the failure was due to misunderstanding.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) with conditions, nor in its evidentiary rulings, affirming the trial court's judgments.
-
The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the decedent's actions in reaching for his handgun created an immediate threat, and thus no constitutional violation occurred. Consequently, the Monell claim against the city also failed.
-
The court held that it has jurisdiction over all counts and that any procedural defect in removal was cured, thus denying remand; it also granted motions to dismiss due to shotgun pleading.
-
The court held that federal courts must abstain from interfering in ongoing state criminal proceedings, and a § 1983 claim is not the proper vehicle to challenge guilt or prosecution.
-
The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice because it failed to comply with federal pleading rules and the plaintiff's financial information was inconsistent.
-
The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, a prerequisite for injunctive relief.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for violation of civil rights due to insufficient factual allegations and improper defendant identification.
-
The court recommends denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the case without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to cure deficiencies and pay the filing fee.
-
The court held that a plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims are barred by collateral estoppel because the issue of probable cause was fully litigated and decided in a prior state criminal proceeding. The court also recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
-
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.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was procedurally deficient, failed to state a claim, and constituted an improper shotgun pleading, warranting dismissal.
-
The court recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because it constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim under many cited statutes, and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied without prejudice.
-
The court held that while a jury could find Officer Samples's use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable, he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the incident.
-
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessary emergency circumstances for proceeding without notice to the defendants. The court deferred consideration of a preliminary injunction pending service and respon
-
The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
Samuel Engelhardt, proceeding pro se, sued the State of Florida under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Engelhardt failed to respond to motions to dismiss and failed to comply with
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the named defendants were not proper parties and the alleged deprivation of property did not violate due process as a meaningful post-deprivation remedy was available under state la
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment and due process, as the allegations were conclusory and lacked specific factual support.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and therefore his amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
-
The court held that a second amended complaint filed without leave was properly stricken, and that the plaintiff's allegations of a jail officer using fecal matter on handcuffs stated claims for deliberate indifference and excessive force, thus denying qualified immunity at the m
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under the Eighth Amendment or the ADA because he did not sufficiently allege an objective risk of serious harm, deliberate indifference, or an underlying constitutional violation required for ADA damages.
-
An inmate incarcerated in Florida sued four Department of Corrections employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive use of force and denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and under state law for assault and battery. The court dismissed all federal cla
-
The court held that a defendant already terminated as a party cannot be dismissed again, and a final judgment is inappropriate when claims were not adjudicated on the merits or dismissed with prejudice.
-
The court recommended granting the motion to dismiss because the plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations, the police department is not a suable entity, and the plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing.