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
-
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.
-
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the use of excessive force.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of sexual assault by an officer, even without controlling precedent, establish a plausible claim for violation of clearly established constitutional rights, thus denying qualified immunity at the dismissal stage, but dismissed the o
-
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying the motion to unseal photographs, finding no clear error or contrary to law.
-
Claims against judicial defendants are dismissed with prejudice due to judicial immunity, while claims against non-judicial defendants are dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.
-
Nihal Michael Gautam sued the City of Sunrise and multiple police officers under federal civil rights laws and state law, alleging false arrest, excessive force, failure to intervene, municipal liability, civil RICO violations, and violations of Florida's Public Records Act stemm
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate stated a plausible claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on a prison official's failure to intervene in an assault, and that the plaintiff's alleged injuries were not de minimis.
-
The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the plaintiff's claims of excessive force and battery.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-08-08
The court adopted in part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the complaint with prejudice and restricting the pro se plaintiff's future filings in the case.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
-
A prisoner's § 1983 civil rights action is barred if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of their conviction or sentence, unless the conviction has been invalidated.
-
The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a seizure for malicious prosecution, that punitive damages were unavailable against the City, that injunctive relief was moot, and that the officer was protected by qualified immunity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's official-capacity claims were dismissed, but his individual-capacity failure-to-protect claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
-
The court held that Deputy Barnes is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force was objectively reasonable and not a violation of clearly established law, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a deliberate indifference claim against Sheriff Chronister.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to meet federal pleading standards and directed him to amend it.
-
The court denied the defendant's motion to reopen discovery because the defendant failed to show good cause and excusable neglect.
-
The court held that the amended complaint is a shotgun pleading and that service on defendants Kohr and AIPAC was improper, leading to a lack of personal jurisdiction over them. However, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims are subject to dismissal because they fail to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaints failed to state a claim because they did not allege direct involvement of defendants, relied on theories not actionable under Section 1983, or named entities not subject to suit. The court dismissed the complaints but gr
-
The court dismissed the action because the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee, move to proceed in forma pauperis, and comply with procedural rules for filing a complaint and seeking injunctive relief.
-
The court held that a Section 1983 claim against supervisors based on respondeat superior or failure to respond to grievances is not cognizable, and claims against officials must specify individual or official capacity.
-
The court held that the admission of the plaintiff's prior conviction and drug use evidence was proper, and denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an appeal.
-
A prisoner's claim of excessive force against an individual officer may proceed, but claims against supervisors based on respondeat superior, claims regarding jail commissary prices, and claims against public defenders are dismissed.
-
The court held that a blanket protective order is not warranted based solely on the number of requests for admission, and a motion to compel must be filed in the district where compliance is required.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint must be dismissed because his claims are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine, the Heck doctrine, and prosecutorial immunity, and amendment would be futile.
-
The court held that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Lane are dismissed, official capacity claims for damages are dismissed, and the request for termination of an employee is stricken, but claims against Defendants Pope-Jones and Boone regarding excessive force and failure to
-
The court held that a prisoner's complaint alleging delayed medical care must demonstrate direct involvement of defendants and deliberate indifference, and that respondeat superior and negligence are not actionable under § 1983.
-
A prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolous, malicious, or failure-to-state-a-claim actions is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Additionally, failure to disclose prior litigation history can result
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-06-12
The court held that venue was improper and the plaintiff's claims were frivolous, warranting dismissal rather than transfer.
-
The court recommended dismissal of the complaint because it failed to state a claim, sought relief against immune defendants, and was frivolous in part. Claims against Judge Harper were recommended for dismissal with prejudice due to judicial immunity, while claims against other
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and also failed to disclose his prior litigation history, warranting dismissal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-02
The court held that the plaintiffs' amended complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading, failing to provide adequate notice of the claims against the defendants, and therefore recommended dismissal.
-
A state judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity from monetary damages for acts taken in their judicial capacity, unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
-
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.
-
Summary judgment is granted for defendants on all claims because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate genuine disputes of material fact or violations of clearly established law, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and sovereign immunity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed as a shotgun pleading, fails to name proper defendants, and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for denial of access to courts or due process, and also failed to comply with local rules requiring verification.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-30
The court held that the plaintiff's third amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to conclusory allegations and lack of specific facts.
-
The court recommended granting the motion to dismiss the failure to protect, Monell, negligent retention, and negligent training claims, but denying the motion to dismiss the failure to intervene claim.
-
A prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation history on a court form, even if claimed to be due to misunderstanding, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process warranting dismissal of the case as malicious.
-
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
-
The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim against Officer Mathis due to insufficient specificity and that the Sheriff's Department and Jail were not proper legal entities to sue. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for excessive force because the body camera footage contradicted his allegations of being subdued and not resisting, and the force used was reasonable under the circumstances.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for denial of access to the courts and also misrepresented his litigation history, warranting dismissal.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint, even when liberally construed, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court denied the defendants' motion for certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
-
Once a federal court determined that deputies' use of deadly force was reasonable and necessary to prevent imminent harm, they became immune under Florida Statute § 776.032(1) from any subsequent civil action, and the trial court erred in denying sanctions under § 57.105(1) becau
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order was moot due to his transfer and that his motion for appointment of counsel was denied as there were no exceptional circumstances.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was insufficient to proceed because it failed to state a claim under § 1983 and did not comply with Florida's Medical Malpractice Act.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights claims were properly dismissed because they were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, the defendants were immune, or the claims failed to state a plausible claim for relief.