Case law

Son v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 5, 2020

To state an access-to-courts claim, a plaintiff must first establish an actual injury. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-50 (1996); Barbour, 471 F.3d at 1225. … All motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment shall be filed by July 13, 2020.8 This deadline is also applicable to the filing of any motions or the raising of any affirmative defenses based on qualified immunity.

Hicks v. Jacksonville Sheriff's Office

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 18, 2025

Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are “indisputably meritless,” id. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are “clearly baseless.” Denton v. … App’x 696, 701 (11th Cir. 2013)4 (per curiam) (“Florida law has not established Sheriff’s offices as separate legal entities with the capacity to be sued.”).

United States v. Lambert

589 F. Supp. 366 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 11, 1984

In the present casé, no formal agency record was established and presented to this court for review; therefore, this court has assumed a broader latitude in dealing with the position of the Government, although it is still … Pickens, although a qualified appraiser, made certain assumptions which render the probative value of his opinion questionable. He testified that nine acres on Mr.

Baker

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 27, 2026

Nonetheless, an employee’s decision to engage in protected activity “cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that … In attempting to establish an adverse employment action, Mr.

Davis v. State of Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 3, 2022

The Eleventh Circuit instructs: A state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court either reaches … The court applied clearly established law to reasonably determined facts. Defense counsel would not have prevailed on the proposed argument or motion.

Onyenanu v. Garland

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 17, 2024

On the facts alleged, Plaintiff fails to establish the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. … Failure to timely file an Amended Complaint that clearly alleges the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction within the time permitted will result in this action being dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.

Robles v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 3, 2020

“[A]t the pleading stage, [Plaintiffs] must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Id. (quoting Warth v. … Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373 (1982) (finding standing under the Fair Housing Act for a plaintiff who did not receive required disclosures by the defendant because the statute “establishes an enforceable right to truthful

Marrow v. E. R. Carpenter Company, Inc. d/b/a Carpenter Co.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 4, 2025

“[A]t the pleading stage, the plaintiff must ‘clearly allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” (alteration adopted) (quoting , 422 U.S. 490, 518 (1975)). … Compl. ¶ 55, the notice purports to identify the qualified beneficiaries eligible to elect continuation coverage. The notice lists Marrow as the sole qualified beneficiary eligible to elect continuation coverage.

Martinez v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 27, 2021

Ground One Gavillan-Martinez alleges his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he was entitled to request a pre-trial hearing to establish his immunity from … and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the state court’s adjudication of this claim was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal

Dysart v. Palms of Pasadena Hospital, LP

89 F. Supp. 3d 1311 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 2, 2015

Clearly, the answer is yes. Id. at 472-73 (emphasis added). … Clearly, the answer is yes.” Ferrill, 168 F.3d at 472-73 (emphasis added).

Ivery v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 7, 2025

Accordingly, “it is not ‘an unreasonable application of’ ‘clearly established Federal law’ for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the Supreme] Court … Rhode Island, 640 F.3d 478, 484 (1st Cir. 2011) (finding no “clearly established Supreme Court case law speaking directly to the admission of prior bad acts evidence”); Flores v. Adams, 319 F.

Patterson

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 10, 2026

The state court need not issue an opinion explaining its rationale for the state court’s decision to qualify as an adjudication on the merits. Harrington v. … state court has adjudicated a petitioner’s claims on the merits, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

iCore Midco Inc. v. PIGI Solutions LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 23, 2025

Because a “preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy,” courts should not enter one “unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to the four requisites.” … Plaintiffs have not clearly established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of any claim. The court thus denies Plaintiffs’ motion. See MC3 Invs., 661 F.

Partipilo v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 6, 2023

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. … The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) does not determine who qualifies as an expert witness.

McGhee v. Jacksonville Sheriffs Office

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 31, 2023

Additionally, Plaintiff names as a Defendant an individual entitled to immunity: Judge Soud. See Dykes v. … “[T]he Supreme Court established that ‘absent extraordinary circumstances federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions.’” Hughes v.

USAA General Indemnity Company v. Snow

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 31, 2020

“A court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Id. … App’x 830, 834 (11th Cir. 2020)(“Owens herself is a ‘qualified witness’ permitted to introduce these documents into evidence.

Cummings v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2024

The phrase “clearly established Federal law,” encompasses only the holdings of the United States Supreme Court “as of the time of the relevant state- court decision.” Williams v. … Petitioner has not shown that the state courts’ denial of Grounds One, Two, Three, and Five is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent or is an unreasonable determination

Nelson v. Burnham

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 6, 2020

. § 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish two essential elements: the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and this conduct deprived the plaintiff of … rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Carver Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance v. School Board

124 F. Supp. 3d 1254 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 19, 2015

Jablonski of this fact and offer her the opportunity to resubmit an application with a charter that would qualify under current Board Policy. Thank you and continue to enjoy your day! Ms. … The structure of subsection (2) of the statute clearly creates three tiers of schools. Elementary schools constitute one tier. Middle or junior high schools, synonymously, constitute a second tier.

Elite Wheel Distributors, Inc. v. Wheel Pros, LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 23, 2025

Third, Wheel Pros contends that its statements in the 2019 cease-and-desist letter are immunized from tort liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Id. at 17–19. … Sasoni, 652 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“[Defendant’s] statements that the building was ‘a very good building’ requiring ‘normal type of maintenance,’ and ‘an excellent deal,’ were clearly statements of opinion