You are here

Available Cases

Pro Se Plaintiff, Gustavo Abella, brings a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an officer in the Miami-Dade Police Department. The Plaintiff claims the Defendant interfered with his constitutional right of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution when the Defendant allegedly followed, harassed and intimated the Plaintiff for displaying a political sign on the back of his vehicle. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, punitive damages and compensatory damages against the defendant. There is a motion to strike the Defendant’s amended answers and affirmative defenses currently pending. Jury trial is set for 11/25/2019. Calendar Call Telephonically set for 11/20/2019 at 2:00PM. Pretrial Conference Telephonically set for 10/23/2019 at 2:00PM.
If interested, please email

In this Section 1983 claim, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered injuries when he had a seizure while in custody at Miami Federal Detention Center. He alleges that Defendant's negligent medical care and treatment resulted in Plaintiff's injuries. Discovery has closed. Counsel is requested to assist Plaintiff in preparing or responding to dispositive motions, including motion for summary judgment, which have an anticipated filing deadline of May 23, 2019. Trial is set to begin on September 30, 2019.   If interested, please email

Pro Se Plaintiff brings various false imprisonment and related claims against the Homestead Police Department, Charter Schools USA, Inc., and others. Plaintiff alleges that he was improperly arrested and detained during an incident on September 23, 2016 at Keys Gate Charter School. Defendants have filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim that is currently pending, and discovery is ongoing. At Plaintiff’s request, a mediator has been appointed by the court. If interested, please email

The first set of claims relate to Excessive Force used by five jail employees. They are identified as Sergeant Quest, Deputy Maynes, Deputy Anda, Deputy Green, and Deputy Powell. According to Plaintiff, these five defendants beat him in his cell despite his compliance with orders. Plaintiff alleged that he was punched, stomped on, dragged to the floor, and hit multiple times. Plaintiff further alleged that one of the defendants, specifically Sergeant Quest, ordered the beating in his cell.

    The second set of claims are for Failure to Intervene against the previously mentioned jail employees. This claim alleges that those five defendants, who applied force in Plaintiff’s cell, failed to take reasonable steps to protect him from excessive force by instead participating in the beating.

    Plaintiff raised a claim of Retaliation against Sergeant Quest. According to Plaintiff, Sergeant Quest relocated him to a windowless cell because Plaintiff filed a grievance and requested medical attention after being beaten. Plaintiff alleged that Sergeant Quest “intercepted” the attempt at grieving or seeking medical attention.  Replacement was ordered, as Plaintiff alleges, to prevent officials from seeing or documenting Plaintiff’s injuries. At the pleading stage, this Court drew an inference that placement in a windowless cell may have been ordered as an attempt to hinder Plaintiff’s ability to substantiate legal claims.While relocated, the replacement allegedly prevented Plaintiff from receiving medical treatment for fifteen days.

    As to his final claim, Plaintiff raised a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Nurse Henri. According to these allegations, Nurse Henri failed to provide emergency medical services and failed to provide treatment after the beating. The allegations also state that Nurse Henri did not write an event report after the beating. As injuries, Plaintiff states that he endured a concussion, broken ribs, and cuts, bleeding, and swelling to his head and face. Plaintiff adds that he now suffers from blurred vision, headaches, and panic attacks that range in their severity.  If interested, please email

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff filed this action against the City of Miami Beach and two officers.  The Complaint was filed on October 4, 2016 and alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and for failure to train.  Plaintiff contends that he was not violating any traffic laws when he was pursued and stopped by two City of Miami Beach officers for “driving while black.” The incident gave rise to two traffic tickets, one for a missing tag light and another for driving without a license. According to Plaintiff, his tag light was operable, yet one of the officers admitted to falsifying the ticket in order make the stop “look good on paper.”  As a result of the traffic tickets, Plaintiff was later arrested and jailed for violating the conditions of his state probation. While in jail, he lost his two jobs, his apartment, and various personal property. He became depressed and suffered physical injury. Upon his release, Plaintiff challenged the two tickets and both were ultimately dismissed.  Thereafter, while incarcerated for reasons unrelated to the circumstances giving rise to this case, Plaintiff filed his Complaint.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Magistrate Judge screened the Complaint before service to the Defendants.  Upon the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  Plaintiff filed a timely appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit held that Plaintiff successfully stated a plausible claim against the officers for violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments however, Plaintiff failed to state a claim as it relates to the City of Miami Beach.  Nevertheless, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Plaintiff should be allowed to amend the Complaint against the City because he may be able to identify facts supporting his claim that the City has known for years that its officers were violating the constitutional rights of African-Americans and has taken no action to address the issue. On August 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint re-alleging his Section 1983 and failure to train claim, as well as an additional claim for malicious prosecution.

On October 25, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Modified Report and Recommendation recommending that (1) the Fourth Amendment claims against the officers in their individual capacities procced; (2) the Fourth Amendment claims against the officers in their official capacity be dismissed because there is no allegation against a municipal policymaker or any indication that the officer Defendants have final policymaking authority; (3) the malicious prosecution claim against the officers and the City be dismissed because the issuance of a ticket does not amount to a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and Plaintiff’s admission of driving without a license established that probable cause existed for the underlying traffic violation; and (4) the failure-to-train claim against the City be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff has still not identified specific facts to make a plausible showing that the alleged custom or policy of discrimination existed.  Lastly, because Plaintiff is incarcerated and will not face unreasonable searches by the City or its officers anymore, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief. Defendants have not been served with the operative Complaint.  If interested, please email

Plaintiff asserts claims of employment discrimination and retaliation against Defendant, his former employer, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He alleges that he was subjected to systemic racial discrimination and harassment by his former manager and was denied growth opportunities by the company.  Plaintiff claims that he made several complaints to the Human Resources Department about his former manager, but that no corrective action was taken.  He also alleges that he was terminated six days after making a complaint to the Human Resources Department about his former manager, and that Defendant provided no explanation for the termination.  If interested, please email

Pro se Plaintiff, Kolneikra Williams, filed this action seeking review of an unfavorable decision on her child's disability insurance benefits claim by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.  The complaint was filed July 23, 2018, and Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendant has not yet filed a response to the Complaint.  If interested, please email

Mr. Naranjo, a veteran of the United States Armed Forces, brings a claim against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging he was misdiagnosed and mistreated by the Miami VA Healthcare System and the VA Boston Healthcare System.  Mr. Naranjo alleges his mistreatment at the VA hospitals caused him permanent nerve damage and PTSD.  The Government has yet to be served.  Mr. Naranjo has requested counsel to represent him in this case. If interested, please contact:

Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner at Dade Correctional Institution, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging abuse by a number of employees of the institutions in which he has been incarcerated.  Plaintiff’s current complaint, which may require amendment, alleges three claims: a claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, a claim Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, and a claim Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.   Plaintiff states he suffers from a number of mental illnesses for which he was denied treatment.  Because of Plaintiff's self-reported mental illness, he seeks a volunteer lawyer to represent him in his case. If interested, please email