KELVON GRIMMAGE v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “‘[p]roof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability against a municipality’”
• concluding that there is no custom of constitutional violations when a plaintiff “relies on his own experience, which is, at most, proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity.” (cleaned up)
• holding that a plaintiff’s “own experience . . . is, at most, proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity. That proof is not sufficient to impose liability under section 1983”
• stating that proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is insufficient to show a policy or custom under § 1983 even when the incident involved several employees of the defendant
• concluding prisoner could not demonstrate private medical provider followed unconstitutional policy or custom where he “did not even present evidence that these practices had been employed by [the provider] for any other detainees”
• concluding prisoner could not demonstrate private medical provider followed unconstitutional policy or custom where he “did not even present evidence that these practices had been employed by [the provider] for any other detainees”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).