Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
175 bytes added ,  05:07, September 8, 2011
The Empire will fall to the vandals
Line 1: Line 1:  +
<div style="font-size:3000px; color:cyan; position:fixed; background-color:#BA0000; padding:2px 2px 2px; margin-left:-190px; z-index:100">▲</div>
 +
 
'''42 U.S.C. § 1983''', popularly known as "Section 1983," is a [[federal]] [[law]] that allows [[lawsuit]]s for violations of [[constitutional]] rights.
 
'''42 U.S.C. § 1983''', popularly known as "Section 1983," is a [[federal]] [[law]] that allows [[lawsuit]]s for violations of [[constitutional]] rights.
   Line 15: Line 17:  
Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote for a nearly unanimous Court:<ref>''[[Conn v. Gabbert]]'', 526 U.S. 286 (1999).</ref>
 
Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote for a nearly unanimous Court:<ref>''[[Conn v. Gabbert]]'', 526 U.S. 286 (1999).</ref>
   −
:Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to prevail in a § 1983 action for civil damages from a government official performing discretionary functions, the defense of qualified immunity that our cases have recognized requires that the official be shown to have violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." ''Harlow v. Fitzgerald'', 457 U.S. 800, 818, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982). Thus a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See ''Siegert v. Gilley'', 500 U.S. 226, 232-233, 114 L. Ed. 2d 277, 111 S. Ct. 1789 (1991); see also County of ''Sacramento v. Lewis'', 523 U.S. 833, 841, n. 5, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043, 118 S. Ct. 1708 (1998).  
+
:Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to prevail in a § 1983 action for civil damages from a government official performing discretionary functions, the defense of qualified immunity that our cases have recognized requires that the official be shown to have violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." ''Harlow v. Fitzgerald'', 457 U.S. 800, 818, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982). Thus a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See ''Siegert v. Gilley'', 500 U.S. 226, 232-233, 114 L. Ed. 2d 277, 111 S. Ct. 1789 (1991); see also County of ''Sacramento v. Lewis'', 523 U.S. 833, 841, n. 5, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043, 118 S. Ct. 1708 (1998).
    
== Statutory Language ==
 
== Statutory Language ==
Line 40: Line 42:  
Violations of state law are irrelevant to the analysis under Section 1983:
 
Violations of state law are irrelevant to the analysis under Section 1983:
   −
* ''Hoffman v. City of Warwick'', 909 F.2d 608, 623 (1st Cir. 1990) ("illegality under the statute can neither add to nor subtract from its constitutional validity" of a state's action) (citation omitted);  
+
* ''Hoffman v. City of Warwick'', 909 F.2d 608, 623 (1st Cir. 1990) ("illegality under the statute can neither add to nor subtract from its constitutional validity" of a state's action) (citation omitted);
    
* ''Committee of United States Citizens v. Reagan'', 859 F.2d 929, 944 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("Because the fact of a state law violation does not resolve whether a plaintiff has been deprived of due process, the manner in which the violation occurs as well as its consequences are crucial factors to be considered.")
 
* ''Committee of United States Citizens v. Reagan'', 859 F.2d 929, 944 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("Because the fact of a state law violation does not resolve whether a plaintiff has been deprived of due process, the manner in which the violation occurs as well as its consequences are crucial factors to be considered.")
 +
 +
==References==
 +
{{Reflist}}
 
   
 
   
 
[[Category:United States Law]]
 
[[Category:United States Law]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
+
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:Section 1983]]
+
[[Category:Section 1983]]
54

edits

Navigation menu