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
-
A prisoner with three prior dismissals for frivolity or failure to state a claim is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless they allege imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
A pro se prisoner's complaint must contain plausible factual allegations that state a claim for relief, and vague assertions or labels are insufficient. Entities like Sheriff's Offices are not suable under Florida law.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies because the grievances filed did not concern the specific claims raised in the amended complaint.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-09-18
The court recommended granting Miami-Dade County's motion to quash service, vacate the default, and dismiss the county without prejudice due to improper service.
-
The court recommended denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
-
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.
-
The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently exhausted administrative remedies and adequately alleged state law claims to survive a motion to dismiss.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the Duval County Jail because jails are not suable entities under Florida law, and failed to state a claim against UF Health of Jacksonville because it was not alleged to be a state actor and HIPAA does not create
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-04
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendants' deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, entitling the defendants to judgment as a matter of law.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied because his allegations did not satisfy the imminent danger exception to the three-strikes rule.
-
The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden to show the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies.
-
A prisoner must properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a Section 1983 action, and failure to do so mandates dismissal.
-
Summary judgment is granted for defendants Hanson and Kirby as Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of their presence or involvement. Summary judgment is denied regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies for other defendants, as naming all defendants is not required by FDOC
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-17
The court held that the plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint, which remained a shotgun pleading despite prior opportunities to amend, should be dismissed with prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that certain defendants were entitled to immunity.
-
The court held that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they invite review and rejection of state court judgments.
-
The court held that a non-lawyer proceeding pro se cannot represent other pro se plaintiffs, and that the complaint failed to state claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and failure to train due to insufficient factual allegations.
-
The court held that the complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to amend.
-
A prisoner sued two Florida correctional officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights through attempts to obstruct his grievance filings and retaliation for filing grievances, and the magistrate judge found that the prisoner properly exhaust
-
A prisoner's failure to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit requires dismissal of the action without prejudice.
-
Claims against a defendant must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service when the U.S. Marshals Service cannot locate the defendant after reasonable efforts and the plaintiff fails to provide a service address or show cause.
-
A prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation history, even if unintentional, warrants dismissal of the case without prejudice as malicious due to abuse of the judicial process.
-
The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that only the plaintiff's termination was a timely actionable claim and that he failed to establish claims for race discrimination, national origin discrimination, or retaliation.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing individual plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing, claims against John Doe defendants, and supervisory liability claims, while allowing amendment for wrongful death claims and denying dismissal for ex
-
The court held that while individual-capacity claims and official-capacity claims against some defendants are dismissed, the official-capacity claim against Secretary Dixon for injunctive relief under RLUIPA and the First Amendment survives.
-
The court denied the motion to dismiss based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, finding the defendant failed to meet his burden of proof.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the legislative defendants and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
The court granted summary judgment for defendants on most claims, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding excessive force and upholding qualified immunity.
-
The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving the plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies.
-
The court held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the excessive force and assault/battery claims against Defendant North, but granted summary judgment for Defendant Carter on the deliberate indifference claim.
-
Sandra and John Corbin sued Charlotte County Sheriff's Office deputies for excessive force, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to medical needs following Sandra's arrest during a traffic stop, where Deputy Aaron Williams leg-swept her, causing a fractured tibia. The court
-
In this case, three innocent bystanders shot by a police officer while sitting in a parked car at a restaurant drive-through sued the officer and county for excessive force and related state law torts. The court denied the officer's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment excessiv
-
The court held that a plaintiff's refusal to comply with court orders, even if based on a belief that venue is improper, warrants dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a 'class of one' equal protection claim because it did not identify a similarly situated comparator with adequate specificity, and dismissed the procedural due process claim for failure to plead the unavailability of
-
The court held that a Section 1983 claim against an employer based solely on an employee's actions is barred by the inapplicability of respondeat superior, and that while a difference of medical opinion is insufficient, an allegation of being provided no consumable medication for
-
An inmate at a Florida correctional facility brought a § 1983 civil rights action alleging that prison medical staff assaulted him and sergeants sexually assaulted him in retaliation for filing medical grievances. The court denied motions for summary judgment by all defendants, f
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint states a plausible claim against Dr. Noe for an Eighth Amendment violation, but dismisses claims against other defendants for failure to state a claim.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint, while an improvement, still fails to properly plead claims against defendants in their individual capacities and violates local rules regarding margins, requiring a second amended complaint.
-
The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state in federal court absent waiver or abrogation of immunity, and Florida has not waived its immunity in federal civil rights actions.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims for violations of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VI, and also failed to state a claim for negligence, warranting dismissal of the complaint.
-
The court held that while the two-man carry was reasonable force, other alleged uses of force presented genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment. The court also found that punitive damages are not statutorily barred.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the Sheriff's Office was an improper defendant, official capacity claims were redundant, individual capacity claims against the Sheriff failed for lack of personal involvement, and the remaining claims were barred by qualified
-
The court held that the plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was time-barred by Florida's four-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-04-24
The court held that a state has broad power to impose taxes, and a property owner cannot claim a constitutional right is violated by the imposition of a property tax, especially when the arguments resemble frivolous 'sovereign citizen' theories.
-
A sheriff's office is not a suable entity under Florida law, and claims challenging the validity of a conviction are barred by Heck v. Humphrey unless the conviction has been invalidated.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The court held that prosecutors and witnesses are immune from suit, defense attorneys are not state actors, and the plaintiff failed to state a false arrest claim due to arguable probable cause.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.