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 dismissed the pro se plaintiff's complaint because federal courts must abstain from intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.
-
Rex Lenoir, a Duval County Jail detainee, filed a pro se § 1983 civil rights action alleging constitutional violations arising from his June 2021 arrest, including suggestive identification procedures, illegal search, and excessive force. The court dismissed the complaint for fai
-
Judges and federal prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in their official capacities, barring claims against them.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against Centurion and dismissed her ADA, equal protection, due process, and privacy claims against it. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies regarding her claims against
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a viable § 1983 claim against any defendant and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The court held that the deputy's use of a single kick to subdue a suspect who had partially complied but still posed a potential threat was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law, thus granting qualified immunity. The court also found the sheriff immun
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a viable § 1983 claim in his third amended complaint, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaints were impermissible shotgun pleadings and failed to state a claim, but granted leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion in limine, excluding certain anticipated evidence and arguments as irrelevant or inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
-
The court held that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against certain defendants, but failed to state a claim against the John Doe defendant.
-
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.
-
Medical malpractice and negligence are not actionable under Section 1983; an inmate must allege deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint was deficient for failing to state plausible claims under federal rules and required an amended complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-01-29
The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing most claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity but granting leave to amend the Title IX claim.
-
The court held that the plaintiff prisoner's allegations sufficiently pleaded claims for excessive force, failure to intervene, assault, and battery, thus denying the defendants' motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity and failure to state a claim.
-
The court held that excessive force claims against two deputies may proceed, but claims against medical providers, a supervisor, and the county are dismissed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference or First Amendment retaliation against Dr. Cruz-Vera, and thus granted the motion to dismiss.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred by the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his prior convictions.
-
The court held that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible conspiracy claim against the nurse defendants, but denied the motion to strike and found Plaintiff had exhausted administrative remedies for the conspiracy claim.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and therefore his claims against Assistant Warden Goodwin are dismissed. Claims against Officer Foster are dismissed due to unexecuted service.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and were therefore dismissed.
-
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint was deficient for failing to state a claim and violating pleading rules, but granted an opportunity to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies because his grievances focused on a disciplinary report rather than the excessive force claims raised in his complaint.
-
The court held that the City of Miami is entitled to sovereign immunity for the plaintiff's claims, and Officer Davis is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim, but not on the false arrest and excessive force claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a municipal liability claim against the City of Tampa and that the claim against the chief of police was redundant.
-
Consolidating four related federal cases, the court ruled on discovery disputes in death row inmates' Eighth Amendment challenges to Florida's three-drug lethal injection protocol using etomidate, rocuronium bromide, and potassium acetate. The court granted the inmates' motions t
-
The court denied the defendants' motion for sanctions seeking dismissal because the defendants failed to provide proof of proper notice for the plaintiff's depositions.
-
Supervisory officials cannot be held liable under § 1983 based solely on vicarious liability or for responding to grievances; claims against them are dismissed if no personal participation or causal connection is alleged.
-
The Court denied the City of Clearwater's motion to dismiss state law claims, finding that sovereign immunity did not apply at this stage and that factual allegations were sufficient to potentially support claims for negligent hiring and retention.
-
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to adequately invoke federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court dismissed claims against Nurse Gardener for failure to state a claim and denied the motion for injunctive relief, but allowed the claim against Dr. Le Yen to proceed pending service.
-
The court held that a speedy trial claim seeking release must be brought as a habeas corpus petition, not a § 1983 action.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of verbal harassment and a single slap, without resulting harm or constitutional violation, fail to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that a probationary deputy sheriff in Florida does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment, thus precluding a procedural due process claim.
-
The Court dismissed the pro se complaint without prejudice because it failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and because federal courts must abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings.
-
The court held that federal civil rights claims against private actors fail without state action, Rooker-Feldman bars review of state court judgments, ADA claims fail against private entities, and the constitutional challenge is time-barred.
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint failed to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation because it lacked specific factual allegations demonstrating deliberate indifference by the defendants to his serious medical needs.
-
A plaintiff must allege facts showing direct participation or a causal connection to establish supervisory liability under § 1983.
-
A woman arrested at a Florida state prison after corrections officers found synthetic marijuana in her car sought to recover damages from the deputy sheriff and corrections officers involved. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the deputy sheriff, finding he had arguab
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendant was a private actor, not a state actor, and the alleged HIPAA and malpractice claims lacked a private right of action or constitutional basis.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the named defendants.
-
Professors and a student at Florida public universities challenged the Individual Freedom Act (also known as the Stop W.O.K.E. Act) on equal protection grounds, claiming the law was enacted with discriminatory racial purpose, and sought discovery from legislators regarding their
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against either defendant because the correctional institution is not a legal entity amenable to suit and the complaint lacked specific allegations of policy or custom for the private medica
-
The court held that the prisoner's civil rights complaint was dismissed without prejudice, allowing him to file an amended complaint within 30 days, and denied his motion for injunctive relief as moot.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, finding them barred by the statute of limitations and failing to state a claim.
-
The court held that the pro se plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not state a claim against the supervisor, warranting dismissal.
-
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.
-
The court held that all of the plaintiff's claims were barred under Heck v. Humphrey because a favorable ruling would necessarily imply the invalidity of his federal conviction, and alternatively, the claims were meritless and officers were protected by qualified immunity.