JONES
v.
EUSTICE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this civil rights case, the district court reviewed a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss. The court adopted the recommendation in part, dismissing plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim for failure to state a plausible claim, but denying the motion to dismiss on other grounds including defendant's argument regarding punitive damages.
The court held that the motion to dismiss should be granted in part because the second amended complaint fails to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim. The motion is denied in all other respects, including defendant's argument concerning punitive damages, which the court determines should be denied on the merits rather than as premature.
[1] A second amended complaint fails to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim when it does not allege facts sufficient to establish a plausible claim.
[2] A motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in all other respects when the court adopts a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, except as noted.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that his motion to dismiss should granted in part because second amended complaint fails to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim”
Establishes the court's holding on the First Amendment claim dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Jones filed suit against defendant Eustice. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting First Amendment retaliation claims and Eigh…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Eighth Amendment Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 37). Defendant filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. 39), but Plaintiff did not. No response to Defendant's objection is needed.
Upon de novo review of the issues raised in Defendant's objection under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that his motion to dismiss should granted in part because second amended complaint fails to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim. The Court also agrees that the motion to dismiss should be denied in all other respects, but the Court finds that the motion should be denied on the merits (rather than as premature) with respect to Defendant's argument concerning the issue of punitive damages. See, e.g., Flores v. Pugh, Case No. 3:24cv68, ECF No. 27, at 10- 11 (N.D. Fla. July 12, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, ECF No. 35 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2024); Santiago v. Walden, 2024 WL 2895319, at *8 (M.D. Fla.
June 10, 2024); Blake v. Ortega, 2024 WL 2000107, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1996014 (N.D. Fla. May 6, 2024).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order, except as noted above.
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 31) is GRANTED in part, and any First Amendment retaliation claim in the second amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
3. This case is returned to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant.
DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2024.
T. KENT WETHERELL, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Eustice, 2024 WL 2895319 (N.D. Fla. 2024)…24), report and recommendation adopted, ECF No. 35 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2024); Santiago v. Walden, 2024 WL 2895319, at *8 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2024); Blake v. Ortega, 2024 WL 2000107, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1996014 (N.D. Fla. May 6, 2024). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order, except as noted above. 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 31) is GRANTED in part, and any First…1 / 3
-
Harris v. Fla. Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2024)…t to prison conditions. See Motion at 21-24. The Court has repeatedly rejected similar arguments. See, e.g., Walker v. Bailey, No. 3:23- CV-511-MMH-MCR, 2024 WL 3520868, at *8–9 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2024); Santiago v. Walden, No. 3:23-CV-741-MMH-JBT, 2024 WL 2895319, at *8–9 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2024). For the reasons detailed in the prior decisions cited here, the Court again declines to find that Harris's request for punitive damages is statutorily barred. Defendants' Motion is due to be denied as to this issu…
-
DelValle v. Heredia (M.D. Fla. 2024)…WL 3673600, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2024) (“While [the PLRA] erects guardrails on the prospective relief available to inmates challenging prison conditions, it does not outright bar punitive damages."); Santiago v. Walden, No. 3:23-cv-741-MMH- JBT, 2024 WL 2895319, at *9 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2024) (“[T]he Court declines to find that [the PLRA] precludes a request for punitive damages in this § 1983 action."). Therefore, the PLRA does not bar Mr. Delvalle's request for punitive damages. Likewise, it would be p…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. Eustice, 2024 WL 2895319 (N.D. Fla. 2024)