Case law

Deveaux v. Secretary Florida Department Of Corrections (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 25, 2021

2001) (by its terms, the statute of limitations provision in AEDPA bars any petition filed more than a year after the conviction became final at the conclusion of direct appeal, absent exceptions and qualified … Finally, Petitioner does not assert or demonstrate that he has new evidence establishing actual innocence. See Reply.

Lord v. LOCAL UNION NO. 2088

481 F. Supp. 419 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 29, 1979

between the Union and RCA applies to all employees in the bargaining unit, and contains provisions whereby employees may exercise their seniority within contractual seniority groups and be awarded jobs for which they are qualified … exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over lands or interests therein which have been or shall hereafter be acquired by it shall not be required; but the head or other authorized officer of any department' or independent establishment

Cronin v. Jones

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 2, 2020

Additionally, because this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident, Dr. Campbell is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendant Inch’s argument that no surgical recommendation has been established is overtly contradicted by the evidence: Dr.

Mathews v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 23, 2024

Mathews cites no case in which a court found that conduct similar to that UPS allegedly engaged in qualified as sufficiently “outrageous” conduct. … This series of actions, he argues, establishes the necessary causal connection. The Court disagrees.

Gonzalez-Betancourt v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2022

established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or (2) “involved an unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Federal … 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.”

Elliott

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 14, 2025

Accordingly, “[t]he focus . . . is on whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable, and . . . an unreasonable application is different from an incorrect one.” … Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003) (stating that “[t]he state court’s application of clearly established federal law must be objectively unreasonable” for a federal habeas petitioner to prevail and that the

Ring v. Boca Ciega Yacht Club, Inc

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 7, 2019

covered establishment. … qualifies as such a private organization under the plain meaning of the term.

Santiesteban v. M. Delalamon, MLP

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 1, 2020

Defendants counter Plaintiff’s assertions, arguing that “the comprehensive medical records, the submitted pleadings, and supporting affidavits clearly establish that neither Defendant is a medical professional … immunity which serve as an indicator that the defendant had actual knowledge of the potential for individual liability”).

Darden v. Wainwright

513 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 8, 1981

There is, however, an established exception to this application of Wainwright v. Sykes. … First, the language in the trial court opinion regarding procedural default is absolute and there is no subsequent language which would qualify or compromise it.

Shabazz v. Baker

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 22, 2022

. § 1983, RFRA, and the RLUIPA; (3) qualified immunity bars Mr. Shabazz’s claims; and (4) Mr. Shabazz failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the PLRA. (Doc. 20 at 9–19.) … June 6, 2016) (“[M]andatory exhaustion statutes like the PLRA establish mandatory exhaustion regimes, foreclosing judicial discretion.”).

Williams v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)

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

of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. … of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence 8 See Wilson, 138 S.

Addison v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 23, 2021

The state court need not issue an opinion explaining its rationale for its decision to qualify as an adjudication on the merits. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, C are those stamped on the bottom of each page. … state court has adjudicated a petitioner’s claim 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

Nwala

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 25, 2026

It is well- established that “a corporation is an artificial entity that can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel.” See, e.g., Palazzo v. … Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any and all claims relating to the contract, including any statutory claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Consumer Financial Protection Act because any alleged reporting would clearly

Osorio v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

558 F. Supp. 2d 1233 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 4, 2008

Similarly, the state courts’ resolutions of issues of law-including constitutional issues-must be accepted unless they are found to be “contrary to” clearly established precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States … Therefore, if he fails to establish either deficient performance or prejudice, *1239 the court need not address the other prong.

Tipton v. Centurion

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 30, 2023

the Court to dismiss this case at any time if the Court determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … 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.

Williams v. Polk County Board of County Commissioners

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 18, 2022

Andresen was not immune from discipline. Plaintiff also contends that Mr. … Nevertheless, his documented poor performance may not be used to establish he was no longer qualified for the job. See Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1360 (collecting cases).

Hagerman

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2026

He does not specify the statement or omission that qualifies as “fraud,” and thus his argument fails for lack of specificity alone. … First, Hagerman repeats that the arbitrator erred by ruling on claims that “were clearly outside the statute of limitations.” Pet. ¶ 23; see also Resp. at 4–7.

Roberts v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 23, 2024

A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently … Accordingly, “[t]he focus . . . is on whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable, and . . . an unreasonable application is different from an incorrect one.”

Shallenburg v. PNC Bank, N.A.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 4, 2020

ALAW challenges Plaintiffs’ efforts to establish an injury in fact. (Doc. 57 at 5). … However, a plaintiff who quotes the FDCPA’s “debt collector” definition and states that a defendant qualifies as a “debt collector” does not sufficiently allege that a defendant qualifies as a “debt collector.”

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 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 finds the state court’s adjudication of this claim is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.