ROOSEVELT JACKSON, JR., M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
NORTH BROWARD COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, WIL TROWER, DIRAN SEROPIAN, MATTHEW LIM, CLAYTON BERGER, DANIEL WILHELM, EDWIN HAMILTON, RONALD FAUER, V. LOMBARDO CASTRO AND BARBARA JOHNSON, 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.
Dr. Jackson appealed the dismissal of his eight-count complaint against a hospital district and nine colleagues arising from the suspension and termination of his hospital privileges. The Fourth District affirmed most dismissals but reversed the dismissal of counts II (equal protection) and IV (defamation) to allow Jackson one more opportunity to cure pleading deficiencies.
The court affirmed dismissal of most counts but reversed dismissal with prejudice of counts II and IV, allowing Jackson to amend his complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies identified by the trial court.
[1] A complaint for defamation must specifically identify the persons to whom allegedly defamatory comments were made and link particular remarks to particular defendants.
[2] To state a cause of action for violation of the equal protection clause under section 1983, a complaint must allege state action and purposeful discrimination.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 equal protection clause "protects against discrimination by 'states,' and 'erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful'"”
Establishes that the equal protection clause requires state action, not merely private discrimination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Roosevelt Jackson's hospital privileges were suspended in 1988 and 1992 and terminated in 1995 by North Broward Hospital District. Jackson filed a…
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.
STEVENSON, J.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice Dr. Roosevelt Jackson’s eight-count “Supplemental Third Amended” complaint naming as defendants North Broward Hospital District and nine colleagues. The complaint essentially stemmed from the suspension of Jackson’s hospital privileges in 1988 and 1992 and the termination of those privileges in 1995.
We affirm the order of dismissal in all respects except for the dismissal with prejudice of count II to the extent that it attempts to state a cause of action for violation of the equal protection clause under section 1983 and count IV which attempts to state a claim for defamation. While the trial judge has been commendably patient with Jackson’s pro se attempt to state a cause of action and even tried to assist Jackson by bringing certain relevant case law to Jackson’s attention, we believe that Jackson should be given one more opportunity to state a proper claim as to the aforementioned counts.
As to the defamation count, not only does Jackson’s complaint fail to specifically identify the persons to whom the allegedly defamatory comments were made, the complaint also fails to link a particular remark to a particular defendant. See, e.g., Valencia v. Citibank Int’l, 728 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Buckner v. Lower Fla. Keys Hosp. Dist. 403 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1982).
The most glaring deficiency in the equal protection count is the absence of any allegations of state action and purposeful discrimination on the basis of race. See Schreiner v. McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., 432 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla.1983)(recognizing that, the equal protection clause “protects against discrimination by ‘states,’ and ‘erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful’ ’’Xquoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948)); see also Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977)(“Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”); McKinley v. State, 650 So. 2d 1052, 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(reeognizing that violation of equal protection clause requires purposeful discrimination).
Accordingly, the judgment on review is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
GROSS, J., and BAILEY, JENNIFER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Technolojoy, LLC v. BHPH Consulting Servs., LLC (S.D. Fla. 2022)…Supp. 2d 1321, 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing the defamation claim for failure to plead when the . allegedly defamatory statements were made and a sufficient description of those statements) . see □ Jackson v. N. Broward Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 766 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (finding that. the defamation count failed because it did not identify the persons to whom the allegedly defamatory comments were made and to link a particular remark to a particular defendant). A plaintiff “must set out…
Authorities Cited
- Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977)
- Shelley et ux. v. Kraemer et ux., 334 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1948)
- John W. Buckner, M.D. v. The Lower Fla. Keys Hosp. Dist., 403 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Ines Valencia v. Citibank Int'l, 728 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Schreiner v. McKENZIE Tank Lines, Inc., 432 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1983)
- Edwards v. State, 650 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- McKINLEY v. State, 650 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)