JACQUELINE OBENSCHAIN AND ADVOCACY CENTER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT B. WILLIAMS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL, GILBERT FERRIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, CUONG BA NGUYEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, KATHLEEN KEARNEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, INC., AND KENNETH KLEIER, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE GUARDIAN ADVOCATE OF JACQUELINE OBENSCHAIN, APPELLEES
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.
Jacqueline Obenschain, proceeding through a guardian advocate, appealed dismissal of her civil rights complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a habeas corpus petition under Florida law. The court reversed because the trial court lacked basis to dismiss with prejudice and improperly found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
The trial court erred in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because sections 26.012(2)(b) and 394.459(8)(b), Florida Statutes, grant jurisdiction. The trial court also abused its discretion by dismissing with prejudice without leave to amend because this was the first indication the pleading was inadequate, the appellant did not abuse her amendment privilege, and the facts pled suggested she could amend to state valid causes of action.
[1] A trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. …
[2] Dismissal of a complaint with prejudice is a severe sanction that should only be granted when it conclusively appears that there is no possible way to amend the complaint…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Dismissal of a complaint with prejudice is a severe sanction which should be granted only when the pleader has failed to state a cause of action, and it conclusively appears that there is no possible way to amend the complaint to state a cause of action.”
Establishes the strict standard for dismissal with prejudice, requiring that amendment be impossible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceObenschain filed a civil rights action on August 8, 1997, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a habeas corpus petition. She filed an amended…
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 Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Appellant, Jacqueline Obenschain, appeals the trial court’s final order dismissing her second amended complaint with prejudice. Appellant argues the trial court erred both by holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and by dismissing her complaint with prejudice without leave to amend, for failure to state a cause of action. We agree with both arguments and reverse.
Appellant filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and a petition for writ of habeas corpus under the provisions of section 394.459(8)(b), Florida Statutes. Sections 26.012(2)(b) and 394.459(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1996), grant the trial court jurisdiction to hear Appellant’s claims. Thus, the trial court erred in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Appellant filed her complaint on August 8, 1997. Before service of the complaint on Appellees, Appellant filed an amended complaint, as a matter of right, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), in order to update factual allegations. The lower court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to name a necessary party. Appellant filed a second amended complaint to include the necessary party. The trial court then dismissed Appellant’s second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state causes of action. In so doing, the trial court abused its discretion.
Dismissal of a complaint with prejudice is a severe sanction which should be granted only when the pleader has failed to state a cause of action, and it conclusively appears that there is no possible way to amend the complaint to state a cause of action. Madison County v. Foxx, 636 So. 2d 39, 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Gowan v. Bay County, 744 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Instead, the pleader should be given an opportunity to amend the defective pleading. Gowan, supra. A court should not dismiss a complaint with prejudice if it is actionable on any ground. Wilson v. News-Press Publishing Co., 738 So. 2d 1000 (Fla, 2d DCA 1999); Dockery v. Florida Democratic Party, 719 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Dismissal with prejudice is an abuse of discretion where a pleader may be able to allege additional facts to support its cause of action or support another cause of action under a different legal theory. Kapley v. Borchers, 714 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Harper Companies v. Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra & Jorgensen, P.A., 656 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The opportunity to amend a complaint should be liberally given and should not be denied unless the privilege has been abused. Gowan, supra; Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So. 2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Gamma Dev. Corp. v. Steinberg, 621 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Appellant did not abuse her privilege to amend her complaint. The dismissal of the second amended complaint with prejudice was the first indication that the pled causes of action were inadequate. Additionally, based on the facts pled in the second amended complaint, it appears Appellant could amend her complaint to state causes of action. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Appellant’s second amended complaint with prejudice.
REVERSED.
ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crawford v. Monroe Cnty., 357 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
Carolyn Banks v. Alachua Cnty. Sch. Bd., 275 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Irve Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Kenneth Kapley, D.D.S. v. Borchers, 714 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Madison Cnty. v. Wiley D. Foxx and Quinton Dryden, 636 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Gamma Dev. Corp. v. Steinberg, 621 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Wilson v. News-Press Publ'g Co., 738 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Gowan v. BAY Cnty., 744 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- C.C. "Doc" Dockery v. Florida Democratic Party and Steve Pincket, 719 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Edwards v. State, 656 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Harper Cos., Inc. v. Scott, 656 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)