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 pro se complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-05-14
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for his claims under Title II and Title VI, and therefore denied his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because he sued an entity not amenable to suit and failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference, nor did he exhaust administrative remedies.
-
Probable cause existed to arrest Ford for obstruction without violence under section 843.02, Florida Statutes, based on her persistent refusal to comply with officers' requests to stop recording and her confrontational conduct that impeded the officers' lawful execution of their
-
The court held that the arrest report could not be considered on a motion to dismiss because it was not attached to the complaint and its contents were disputed. The court also found that the plaintiff's allegations, if true, stated a claim for excessive force against Officer Gon
-
The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged supervisory liability against Sheriff Roberts and denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage, but granted in part the motion to strike punitive damages and attorney's fees claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, dismissing claims against the judge and state attorney with prejudice and others without prejudice, allowing amendment.
-
A pro se civil rights complaint filed by a pretrial detainee must be dismissed if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of a potential conviction.
-
A state legislator blocked a private citizen from his official social media accounts in response to criticism of his legislative votes, and the court held that while the official capacity claim failed, the individual capacity First Amendment claim proceeded to trial because a fac
-
The personal representatives of a deceased prisoner sued corrections officers and medical staff at a Florida prison for allegedly depriving the inmate of adequate food, medical care, and mental health treatment in violation of his constitutional rights. The court denied summary j
-
The District Court granted the defendant's motion to strike or dismiss the plaintiff's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. The court held that expungement of arrest records is not cognizable through a Section 1983 action against an individual officer, as Florida law l
-
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff failed to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and the officer's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-26
Vernon Speak, a former detective-sergeant with the Hendry County Sheriff's Office, sued Sheriff Steve Whidden for retaliating against him after he reported the Sheriff's alleged improper interference in a hit-and-run investigation, claiming violations of Florida's Whistleblower A
-
The court adopted in part and rejected in part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the plaintiff's amended complaint as a shotgun pleading and several of his claims.
-
A party may file a single, combined brief for responding to opposing summary judgment motions and presenting their own cross-motion for summary judgment, as the substantive standard for evaluating summary judgment is the same for all parties.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-02-10
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and motion for appointment of counsel are denied because the appeal is frivolous and there are no exceptional circumstances warranting counsel.
-
The court held that while allegations against some nurses were insufficient, claims against Centurion Doctors, Nurses Morton and Mahoney, and Centurion Administrators, as well as Centurion's policies, could plausibly support a claim for deliberate indifference.
-
A pro se motion for a new trial, even if stricken as unauthorized, tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal if filed within the time permitted by rule. The court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
-
A prisoner who is a 'three-striker' under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) must prepay the entire filing fee unless they demonstrate imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
The court granted summary judgment for the deputies on the Section 1983 excessive force claims, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-29
The court held that the city's New Year's Eve curfew, enacted to mitigate COVID-19 spread, was a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction that did not violate First Amendment rights, and thus denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
-
Mark Young, a deceased pretrial detainee, alleged that correctional officers at the Miami-Dade County Detention Center assaulted him without provocation and subsequently denied him adequate medical care in violation of his constitutional rights. The court partially granted and pa
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for a Fourth Amendment violation because the deputies acted under exigent circumstances.
-
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss most of the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims, finding that the allegations did not sufficiently demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or safety.
-
The court held that the expert's testimony should be excluded because his supplemental affidavit was untimely and prejudicial, and his methodology for analyzing shell casings and the victim's actions was unreliable and would not assist the trier of fact.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was therefore dismissed.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, even when liberally construed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-11-18
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 the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was properly adopted, and the Amended Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
-
The court granted in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing the conspiracy claim and the § 1986 claim with prejudice, while denying the motion on other grounds.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-27
The court held that the County's motion to dismiss the false arrest claim based on sovereign immunity should be denied because the allegations, taken as true, do not conclusively establish that the officers acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's conclusory allegations regarding the amount of food provided were insufficient to state a constitutional claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
Peter Vigue, a homeless person, challenged the constitutionality of two Florida statutes that prohibited charitable solicitation on public roadways without a permit, alleging violations of his First Amendment right to free speech. The court ruled that Florida Statutes § 316.2045
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under Section 1983 and that the state law negligence claim was properly dismissed for failure to comply with statutory pre-suit notice requirements.
-
The court held that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on claims of false arrest and excessive force, requiring these issues to proceed to trial.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, finding the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not demonstrate deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2020-09-02
The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims, and therefore, amendment of the complaint would be futile.
-
The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions, including the warrantless entry and use of a police dog, did not violate the plaintiff's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.
-
A prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, evident on the face of the complaint, requires dismissal of the action.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a municipal policy or custom for his excessive force and inadequate medical treatment claims, and also failed to properly serve one defendant, leading to dismissal of federal claims and remand of the state law claim.
-
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint without prejudice.
-
The court held that the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity for excessive force and battery claims, and the negligence claim was impermissible under Florida law.
-
The court held that the complaint, default, and default judgment could be amended by interlineation to correct the defendant's name to Dr. Glenn Pearson.
-
A § 1983 action is not the proper vehicle for a pretrial detainee seeking release based on speedy trial or double jeopardy claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, requiring dismissal of his civil rights complaint.
-
A judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages and relief for actions taken in their judicial capacity, even if acting maliciously or in excess of authority, unless acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the defendant official was not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage, but the municipality was not liable under Monell because the alleged violation was a single incident, not a policy or custom.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint alleging a private auto repair shop's negligence in servicing a vehicle fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it does not allege a constitutional violation or state action.
-
The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the excessive force claim, precluding summary judgment, and that officers are not entitled to qualified immunity based on the plaintiff's version of events. Summary judgment was granted for the failure to interve
-
The court held that the plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's orders were untimely and without merit, and that the case was properly dismissed for failure to comply with court orders regarding pleading deficiencies.