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 failed to state a plausible claim for false arrest or malicious prosecution because he did not allege a lack of probable cause for his arrest and his prosecution had not terminated in his favor.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations sufficiently stated a claim for excessive force and battery, and that the deputy may not be entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. However, the court found that the deputy had arguable probable cause for an investigatory dete
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the alleged actions did not constitute a constitutional violation and the denial of medical care claim was not plausible.
-
The Florida Department of Corrections is an arm of the state and therefore not a 'person' amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, requiring dismissal of the inmate's complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-13
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the fourth amended complaint with prejudice.
-
The court accepted the magistrate judge's report, dismissing the Section 1983 claim against the individual officer but allowing the Section 1983 claim against the county to proceed on a failure-to-train theory for the second arrest.
-
The court held that the Hernando County Detention Center and its medical department are not suable entities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, requiring dismissal of the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-08
The court held that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars the § 1983 and breach of contract claims, and the Title IX claim fails for lack of plausible allegations of gender bias.
-
In this civil rights case, plaintiff Sanguinetti claimed that deputies and private security personnel violated his constitutional rights by allegedly using excessive force, making a false arrest, and maliciously prosecuting him without probable cause following a denied entry to a
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible deliberate indifference claim against any defendant.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit, requiring dismissal of his complaint.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of isolated verbal sexual harassment do not state a constitutional claim for relief.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's § 1983 claim is time-barred by Florida's four-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was frivolous, malicious, and failed to state a claim, warranting dismissal with prejudice and placement on a restricted filer list.
-
The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff stated plausible claims for deliberate indifference, but denied the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-27
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was a shotgun pleading that failed to state a claim and was dismissed without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
-
The Florida Department of Corrections, as an arm of the state, is not a 'person' subject to monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that claims against the Department of Corrections and Secretary Dixon were dismissed for failure to state a claim, but the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Officer Baker would proceed.
-
Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity because they had arguable probable cause to believe the plaintiff violated the domestic violence injunction by attending church, even if the plaintiff's interpretation of the statute was ultimately correct.
-
The court held that most of the plaintiff's claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, with only one claim surviving dismissal.
-
The court held that the officers' use of force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, entitling them to qualified immunity and statutory immunity.
-
Arthur Scott sued Cape Coral Police Department officers for excessive force and other claims arising from their March 31, 2019 response to a domestic violence call, during which Officer Vazquez tackled him and he suffered a fractured and dislocated hip. The court granted summary
-
The court denied Nurse Singletary's motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded exhaustion of administrative remedies, stated a short and plain claim, and alleged sufficient physical injury for damages.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's excessive force claim (Count II) fails and is dismissed due to qualified immunity, but his federal false imprisonment claim (Count III) for denial of a prompt probable cause hearing may proceed.
-
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim because it impermissibly joined unrelated claims and lacked sufficient factual detail to support the excessive force allegations.
-
The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate he faced a substantial risk of serious harm, a necessary element for an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was moot because he was reinstated to the religious diet program, and he was not entitled to court costs as he was not a prevailing party.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was subject to dismissal under the PLRA.
-
A complaint alleging only negligence in medical treatment, without facts showing deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a constitutional violation due to conditions of confinement or medical care, and also failed to allege facts supporting municipal liability.
-
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate clearly established law.
-
The court held that the FDOC's motion for summary judgment should be denied because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the FWDA claim and sovereign immunity.
-
The court held that the defendant city may be entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) even though the plaintiff prevailed on one count, provided the other claims were frivolous, and that arguments raised solely in footnotes are not considered.
-
Police officers who executed a search warrant that resulted in the death of an innocent bystander were entitled to qualified immunity because their use of force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. The court rejected claims by
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because it failed to present new facts or law to overcome the prior dismissal based on state immunity.
-
The court held that a complaint lacking factual allegations fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to meet federal pleading standards and was deficient in identifying defendants and stating claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, as the allegations amounted to medical malpractice and lacked specificity regarding named defendants' actions.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for defense counsel and travel permission, finding it lacked legal basis and failed to meet procedural requirements.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was a shotgun pleading and his in forma pauperis motion was deficient, granting him one opportunity to amend both.
-
The court held that abstention doctrines and claim-splitting did not warrant a stay because the state court proceedings would not resolve the federal constitutional claims. The court also held that certain allegations in the amended complaint were shotgun pleadings and would be s
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
-
A section 1983 suit challenging an unconstitutional search and seizure does not necessarily imply an unlawful conviction, but the complaint is dismissed for failure to disclose previous lawsuits.
-
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the plaintiffs' claims, as they were an attempt to challenge state court foreclosure judgments.
-
The court recommended granting the plaintiff's renewed motion for entitlement to attorney's fees and costs, finding it timely filed due to a pending motion for judgment as a matter of law, but denied the plaintiff's initial motion for fees as untimely.
-
The court held that a plaintiff must allege deprivation by a state actor to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
Plaintiff Martínez Bowman sued Columbia County Sheriff Mark Hunter, Deputy David Harvey, and Deputy Jayme Gohde under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida state law following a 2020 incident in which deputies pulled over his vehicle for deficient lighting, deployed a police canine that b
-
The court held that a pro se inmate's complaint alleging mail seizure by prison employees failed to state a claim for constitutional violations, and amendment would be futile.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it did not sufficiently allege an unconstitutional policy or custom, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, or a violation of constitutional rights by the d
-
The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged exhaustion of administrative remedies and stated a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.