Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

501 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Dziadik v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-16
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim against Officer Mathis due to insufficient specificity and that the Sheriff's Department and Jail were not proper legal entities to sue. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
• Ellard v. Bennett
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-11
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for denial of access to the courts and also misrepresented his litigation history, warranting dismissal.
• Wilson v. Lamb
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-27
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order was moot due to his transfer and that his motion for appointment of counsel was denied as there were no exceptional circumstances.
• Jackson v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-20
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights claims were properly dismissed because they were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, the defendants were immune, or the claims failed to state a plausible claim for relief.
• Downey v. Perkins
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-12
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of access to courts or violation of privacy rights, and that official capacity suits against JSO employees were improper.
• Scocozzo v. Attorney General of Florida
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-11
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim and is subject to dismissal under the PLRA and Younger abstention doctrine.
• Scocozzo v. Rhoden
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-25
  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.
• Adams v. Tollick
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-14
  The denial of a tablet to an inmate does not constitute a deprivation that is objectively serious enough to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
• Wilson v. Lamb
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-29
  The court held that while the plaintiff sufficiently alleged imminent danger to proceed in forma pauperis, his claims against Warden Lamb failed to state a plausible claim for relief, and claims unrelated to the initial incident were dismissed.
• Graham v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-07
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Santiago v. Fisher
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-20
  An inmate at a Florida correctional facility sued four correctional officers for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment, alleging they sprayed him with chemical agents three times and punched him during a cell extraction on December 7, 2021. The court granted summary judgment
• Lewis v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-12-19
  The court held that some claims, including deliberate indifference and First Amendment retaliation, could proceed, while others, particularly policy-based claims against supervisory officials and entities, were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
• Shannon v. Hale
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-17
  The court held that punitive damages are not statutorily barred in prisoner civil rights actions under 18 U.S.C. § 3626, but a request for a prison transfer is dismissed as it is a matter of prison administration.
• McKinnon v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-16
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims against most defendants and for most claims, but an excessive force claim against one defendant in his individual capacity will proceed.
• Andrews v. McKinney
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-16
  The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to state a claim for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and thus the case is dismissed.
• Burton v. Smith
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-25
  The court held that official capacity claims are dismissed due to sovereign immunity, but it is premature to dismiss claims for compensatory and punitive damages at the pleading stage.
• Nasirun v. Sailor
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-11-13
  The court held that the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted under federal law, warranting dismissal.
• Wright v. Edwards
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-13
  The court held that the defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions was premature and denied it without prejudice.
• Black v. Finney
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-30
  The court held that a prisoner's misrepresentation of his litigation history on a complaint form constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, warranting dismissal.
• Lopez v. Garcia
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-24
  The court held that a prison official's violation of institutional policy, without more, does not constitute deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm, and therefore does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
• Wiggins v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-18
  The Florida Department of Corrections is an arm of the state and thus not a 'person' subject to suit for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Jones v. Armor Healthcare
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-25
  The court held that a prisoner's claim of misdiagnosis by medical staff, amounting to negligence, does not state a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. A contractor's liability under § 1983 requires a policy or custom of deliberate indifference, not respo
• Hamze v. Sergeant Gerow
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-20
  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.
• Claudio v. DeLoach
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-12
  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.
• Stephens v. UF Health of Jacksonville
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-06
  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
• Hill v. Brock
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden to show the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies.
• Barcelona v. Rundle
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  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.
• Abboud v. Hardwick
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-14
  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.
• Jones v. The Lamar Co., L.L.C.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-13
  The court held that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they invite review and rejection of state court judgments.
• Grimage v. Gwara
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-26
  The court denied the motion to dismiss based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, finding the defendant failed to meet his burden of proof.
• Grimage v. Levai
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-19
  The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving the plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies.
• Harris v. Singletary
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-01
  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
• Bonilla-Melgar v. Quilan
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-21
  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.
• Miller v. Willis
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-03
  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.
• Saunders v. City of Lakeland
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-03
  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.
• White v. Centurion of Fla. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-28
  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.
• Cartagena v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-19
  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.
• Jones v. Lamb
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-17
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
• Smith v. Waxrnan
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-04-17
  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.
• Adkins v. Charlotte C.I.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-15
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
• Perry v. Roos
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-11
  The Court dismissed the pro se plaintiff's complaint because federal courts must abstain from intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.
• Lenoir v. Love
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-05
  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
• Knight v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-19
  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
• Howell v. Wells
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-15
  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.
• Vick v. Hernando Cnty. Detention Ctr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-28
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a viable § 1983 claim in his third amended complaint, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
• Cole v. City of Jacksonville
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-01
  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.
• Stewart v. Boone
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-01
  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.
• Sherman v. Willis
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-01-30
  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.
• Berger v. Walker
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-01-19
  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.
• Kelly v. Jett
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-01-18
  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.