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 complaint failed to state cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to insufficient factual allegations and the non-existence of private rights of action for certain statutes cited. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint sufficiently pleaded claims for excessive force and supervisory liability, meeting federal pleading standards.
-
The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not allege that the defendants were state actors or that their conduct violated the Eighth Amendment.
-
Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil rights claims arising from their prosecutorial functions, including actions related to bail.
-
The court held that claims against deputies were dismissed as shotgun pleading, certain claims against the Sheriff were dismissed for lack of private right of action or capacity, but the Section 1983 claim against the Sheriff for a custom of excessive force could proceed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's excessive force claims are not barred by Heck, but claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot, and monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or file a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
The court held that probable cause existed for the arrest, thus dismissing false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, but denied dismissal for excessive force claims due to allegations of unreasonable force against an elderly individual. The court also found that an adjudicat
-
The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's alleged injuries were de minimis as a matter of law, thus denying their motion for partial summary judgment.
-
The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage for the false arrest claim, and the Sheriff was not entitled to dismissal of the § 1983 municipal liability, battery, and false arrest claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-28
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint plausibly alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an arrest outside jurisdictional limits must be dismissed if the arrest was made in fresh pursuit, as this exception negates the claim.
-
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting summary judgment for all defendants and closing the case.
-
The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a finding of excessive force because the force used was de minimis and the injuries were minor.
-
The court held that a plaintiff's failure to prosecute and comply with court orders warrants dismissal of the case without prejudice.
-
The court held that a supervisory official cannot be held liable under § 1983 for subordinates' actions absent personal involvement or a policy of deliberate indifference.
-
The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no evidence of constitutional violations or state law claims sufficient to overcome qualified immunity or Monell liability.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-23
The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently stated claims for racial and national origin discrimination under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act, but failed to sufficiently plead claims for retaliation and a § 1983 violation.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-31
The court held that the Fort Myers Police Department is not a legal entity capable of being sued and granted dismissal, but allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint to name a proper party.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims of wrongful incarceration failed because the sentencing documents clearly established a 91.8-month sentence, not the 60-month sentence alleged.
-
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim and that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity, but granted the plaintiff one final opportunity to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-09
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead claims for negligent supervision/training and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even after multiple opportunities to amend their complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-06
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution and dismissed it without prejudice, granting leave to amend, and denied the motion for default judgment as premature.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for municipal liability under § 1983 due to lack of factual support for a policy or custom, but the state law claims against the City could proceed as sufficient facts were alleged to support the officer acting in good fai
-
The Court denied the Sheriff's motion to dismiss claims of municipal liability, battery, and false imprisonment, finding the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to state plausible claims.
-
Deputy Kasey Wingo sought summary judgment on various claims arising from two arrests of Robert Harris in 2014 and 2016, but the court granted the motion only in part. For the April 2014 arrest, the court found that disputed facts precluded summary judgment on false arrest, malic
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the amended complaint.
-
A prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in an inmate grievance procedure, and therefore, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the denial or handling of such a grievance fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
The court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of a K-9 was objectively reasonable under the circumstances and the law was not clearly established regarding the specific facts presented.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is moot because the amended complaint fails to state a claim.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under Monell for Section 1983 violations against the County and that state law claims against the County were barred by sovereign immunity.
-
The Delaware Superior Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court determined that the defendants were immune under the Delaware State Tort Claims Act because their actions were d
-
The court held that evidence of the underlying facts of the arrest and the plaintiff's drug use at the time are admissible.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for excessive force against the county due to lack of allegations of policy or custom, and that the negligent training claim was barred by sovereign immunity.
-
The Superior Court of Delaware held that Section 1983 claims brought in state court must meet the plausibility standard, requiring specific factual allegations to support the claim. The court also affirmed that state law personal injury claims against state employees are barred b
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2015-04-03
The court denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court found that res judicata did not apply, that a statute allowing warrantless seizure of dangerous dogs did not override constitutional protections, and that Mrs. Smith was collaterally estoppe
-
S.D. Fla.·
2015-02-27
The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the plaintiff's claims of age and race discrimination.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and that the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity for their quasi-judicial actions in investigating the plaintiff's discrimination claim.
-
-
The court granted the motion to dismiss because the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the alleged conduct by private defendants did not constitute state action and much of the conduct was protected by litigation privilege.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Wilmington, Sergeant Donald Bluestein, Sergeant Gerald Murray, Corporal Ralph Schifano, Master Sergeant Sherri Tull, and Chief Mich
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2012-08-23
The court granted summary judgment in favor of the State Defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish genuine issues of material fact on any of his claims. The court determined that the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional
-
The court held that the state defendants' motions to dismiss should be granted in part, finding insufficient service for some claims, failure to comply with sovereign immunity notice requirements, and entitlement to qualified immunity for federal claims against Officer Reynolds.
-
789 F. Supp. 2d 1318·
S.D. Fla.·
2011-06-07
The court held that the City of Miami Beach cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged sexual battery committed by an officer, as such acts fall outside the course and scope of employment under Florida law.
-
-
The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate for certain claims, allowing them to proceed to trial, while granting it for others.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's waiver of his right to access peer review materials was valid, dismissing claims based on the nondisclosure of those materials. However, claims challenging the vagueness and overbreadth of the peer review criterion itself were not dismissed bas
-
The court held that the City of Ocala's Ordinance 5650 is unconstitutionally vague on its face, violating due process rights, and therefore granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiff.
-
591 F. Supp. 2d 1350·
S.D. Fla.·
2008-12-10
The court held that the Chief Judge is entitled to qualified immunity because he acted within his discretionary authority and did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, and the plaintiff lacks standing.
-
The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because their use of force was excessive and violated the Fourth Amendment, and the right was clearly established.