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
-
Plaintiff Rosato, an involuntarily committed resident of the Florida Civil Commitment Center, sued four FCCC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly denying him the opportunity to freely practice his Wiccan faith and for erroneous denial of a grievance. The court dismissed
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of access to courts or violation of privacy rights, and that official capacity suits against JSO employees were improper.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim and is subject to dismissal under the PLRA and Younger abstention doctrine.
-
The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, thus dismissing the federal claims and declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
-
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying the plaintiff's motion for sanctions, finding it was untimely and that the magistrate did not commit clear error.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations against Nurse Bader did not sufficiently state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was subject to dismissal under the PLRA.
-
Earl Lee Dorey sued law enforcement officers under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming they used excessive force against him during an arrest in September 2019, when deputies attempted to apprehend him at a residence in Oxford, Florida. The district court granted the defendants' mot
-
Claims against two officers are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the negligence claim against the remaining officer is dismissed due to sovereign immunity, but the request for punitive damages may proceed.
-
The denial of a tablet to an inmate does not constitute a deprivation that is objectively serious enough to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
-
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.
-
The court held that while the plaintiff sufficiently alleged imminent danger to proceed in forma pauperis, his claims against Warden Lamb failed to state a plausible claim for relief, and claims unrelated to the initial incident were dismissed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish claims for age/disability discrimination and First Amendment retaliation because the adverse employment actions were based on performance issues, not discriminatory or retaliatory motives, and there was no evidence linking the
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-28
The court held that a prisoner's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against an official was sufficiently pled, but official-capacity and declaratory judgment claims were dismissed as moot or barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and claims against an unidentified defendant w
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendants, as private entities, did not act under color of state law, and the complaint was a shotgun pleading.
-
The court held that claims against Judge Campbell are dismissed with prejudice due to absolute judicial immunity, and claims against Crippen and Smith are dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, with leave to amend.
-
The court held that the deputy did not have arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for obstruction of justice, denying qualified immunity on the false arrest claim.
-
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under § 1983 and that her state law claims for negligence and defamation were barred by sovereign immunity and failure to comply with statutory notice requirements.
-
Official-capacity claims against state employees for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as they are equivalent to claims against the state itself, and the State of Florida has not waived its sovereign immunity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-14
The court held that claims for inmate account withdrawals between 2015-2018 are dismissed with prejudice as time-barred, and a claim for a 2024 withdrawal fails to state a procedural due process violation and is dismissed without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-03
The court recommends denying the plaintiff's motion to file a petition because his claims are frivolous and lack arguable merit.
-
The court held that the amended complaint fails to state claims against most defendants due to insufficient identification or lack of factual allegations, but allows the excessive force claim against Lieutenant DeEsposito to proceed.
-
An inmate at a Florida correctional facility sued four correctional officers for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment, alleging they sprayed him with chemical agents three times and punched him during a cell extraction on December 7, 2021. The court granted summary judgment
-
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.
-
The court held that punitive damages are not statutorily barred in prisoner civil rights actions under 18 U.S.C. § 3626, but a request for a prison transfer is dismissed as it is a matter of prison administration.
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to state a claim for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and thus the case is dismissed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims against most defendants and for most claims, but an excessive force claim against one defendant in his individual capacity will proceed.
-
The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying the plaintiff's motions to compel, finding no part of the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
-
In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action, the district court granted a pro se plaintiff's motion to waive Local Rule 3.04's fourteen-day notice requirement for depositions, finding good cause based on mail delays and an approaching discovery deadline.
-
The court held that official capacity claims are dismissed due to sovereign immunity, but it is premature to dismiss claims for compensatory and punitive damages at the pleading stage.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-11-25
A pro se litigant sued the Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott law firm and five Volusia Sheriff's Office officers, alleging an extensive conspiracy to defraud him and others through fraudulent collection practices and unconstitutional conduct over a twenty-year period. The
-
The court held that the defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions was premature and denied it without prejudice.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff cannot file on behalf of another party and that a judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in her judicial capacity.
-
The court held that the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted under federal law, warranting dismissal.
-
A prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation history on a court-approved complaint form, even if unintentional, constitutes a malicious abuse of the judicial process warranting dismissal.
-
The court held that a party must attend a deposition even if a motion for a protective order is pending, and awarded costs for the missed deposition.
-
The court held that a prisoner's misrepresentation of his litigation history on a complaint form constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, warranting dismissal.
-
The court granted the Department of Children and Families' motion to stay discovery and all deadlines as to that defendant, finding its motion to dismiss appeared clearly meritorious and case dispositive.
-
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
-
The court held that a prison official's violation of institutional policy, without more, does not constitute deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm, and therefore does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
-
The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing official capacity claims with prejudice and individual capacity claims against supervisors without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.
-
The Florida Department of Corrections is an arm of the state and thus not a 'person' subject to suit for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient for failing to state a claim and for being a shotgun pleading, and that diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-10-15
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to quash service or dismiss, dismissing official capacity claims and injunctive/declaratory relief as moot or barred by sovereign immunity, but extending time for the plaintiff to serve the personal representative for indivi
-
Amir Shadmani sued Officers J.M. Barnes and A.G. Scott for using excessive force during his arrest following a suspected cocaine possession, and sued Sheriff T.K. Waters for municipal liability and battery. The court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, finding th
-
The court granted the motion for reconsideration, finding that newly discovered evidence of coordination between the defendant and law enforcement could establish state action for a federal claim.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, dismissing all counts with prejudice.
-
The court held that a prisoner's claim of misdiagnosis by medical staff, amounting to negligence, does not state a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. A contractor's liability under § 1983 requires a policy or custom of deliberate indifference, not respo