Civil Rights Outline
42 USC §1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the US or other person within the jx thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Xn and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
Background
Xnal torts are actions brought against state and local gov’ts and their officials/employees, where Ps seek damages for the violation of fed xnal rights.
· 1983 serves two main purposes:
o make sure states (fed agencies in Bivens actions) follow fed xnal laws, ensure uniform enforcement of federal laws.
o Ensure legal redress victims whose xnal rights had been violated by the state.
Week 1
“Under Color Of” : Satisfying the Requirement of State Action:
Official Abuse of Power:
· Monroe v. Pape (SCOTUS 1961)—first litigation under §1983. Involves a 4A claim/warrantless search and seizure.
· Held: congress intended §1983 to provide a federal cause of action to parties deprived of Xnal rights when an official abuses his power or position.
· “Under color of”: misuse of power, possessed by virtue of a state law and made possible only because the wrong done is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken “under color of” state law.
o That there is a state legal remedy is no bar to a federal claim.
o Jury makes the determination of what is “under the color of” law, unless the facts are so clear that no reasonable jury could decide otherwise.
Private Individuals Abuse of Power
· Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (SCOTUS 1982)—Private company acting pursuant to state statute. Lugar brought a 14A claim—deprivation of property w/o DP
· Holding: P presented a valid claim under § 1983
o Challenged the constitutionality of the state attachment statute because respondent acted jointly with the state in securing petitioner’s property.
o The court held that because petitioner was deprived of his property through state action, respondent therefore acted under color of state law in participation of that deprivation.
· Considerations: generally speaking, “under the color of” and “state action” are synonymous. In order to bring a 14A claim against a private actor, the following elements are required:
o 1. Deprivation is a result of a state mandate or authorization, AND
o 2. D must be “state actor”. (ie: must be actor violating right under state law.)
· **Note** “State Action” will always satisfy “under color of” requirement of §1983, but “under color of” will not always satisfy the 14A state action requirement.
Suing Private Actors: Close Nexus Test
oFlagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks(SCOTUS 1978): NY commercial code permits the sale of goods by any storage co. when rent isn’t received. P sues Flagg Brothers for selling stuff under a 14A DP claim.
oHolding: D’s action must have been within the exclusive realm of the state to support a §1983 claim. Test for suing private actors – Were D’s actions:
o 1. State sanctioned?
o 2. Performed by a state actor?
o 3. Actions exclusively reserved to the state ? (PUBLIC FUNCTION TEST)
oReconciling Flagg Bros. and Lugar: there is a difference between a person carrying out state law (read: acting jointly) and a person acting as the state (read: performing exclusive state function)
Suing Private Contractors: Symbiotic Relationship Test
oBurton v. Wilmington Parking Authority(SCOTUS 1961)
o Symbiotic Relationship Test: a private coffee shop who rented space from a gov’t agency and refused service to patron based on skin color is not such a private actor as to fall outside the scope of the 14A because:
§ Rents from state agency help satisfy public use purposes
§ Gov’t agency funded by city
§ Profits earned by discrimination not only contribute to, but are indispensable elements in, the financial success of the gov’t agency.
o***General Rule: contracted parties, absent contractors who run state prisons and medical professionals who provide care for prisoners, are not state actors.
o Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (SCOTUS 1982)—private school, though largely funded with public money, did not act “under the color of” state law when firing teachers.
§ Court finds that the school doesn’t fit into any of the standard tests: Exclusive public function, joint action, close nexus, or symbiotic relationship.
o NCAA v. Tarkanian(SCOTUS 1988)
§ Public university suspended coach because of pressure from (private organization) NCAA.
§ Court held that university was not acting pursuant to state law, but to the private policies of the NCAA. Therefore, §1983 action was improper.
o State Action Tests:
o Symbiotic relationship
§ ¬When the state profited from the private wrong (Wilmington Parking Auth).
§ Vague, not used often, from an “earlier state action decision”. (Supp 89)
o Public function
§ When a private party carries out a function that has been historically and traditionally the ‘exclusive’ prerogative of the state.
§ Examples of ‘exclusive’ state function – eminent domain, providing medical care to inmates.
§ Demanding standard – difficult for plaintiff to satisfy.
o Close or joint nexus
§ The state has ordered or encouraged the private conduct.
§ State authorization, licensing, and/or financial assistance are not enough.
o Joint participation
§ When a private party (def) jointly participates in the alleged wrongdoing with a state or local official engaged in state action.
§ Requires a conspiracy, agreement, or concerted action.
o Pervasive entwinement
§ “Largely overlapping identity” between the def or private actor and the state.
§ Supreme Ct did not provide definitive def’n.
Week 2 : Suing Federal Officials – Bivens Actions
§Bivens—Court thinks it unfair to have no 4A action against federal agents. Same as §1983 claims, but against federal officials; opens up damages suits to individuals against federal actors.
§Schweiker v. Chilicky—Ps who lost disability benefits sued fed employees for money damages.
· Held: (from Bush v. Lucas) When the design of a gov’t program
intiff’s liberty is restrained by physical force or show of authority.
o Liberty restrained = when reasonable person would not have felt free to go. (Factors include number of officers, weapons displayed, in public or non-public setting, the officer’s manner, whether plaintiff was advised of freedom to leave).
8A; Rights of persons in custody: free from cruel and unusual punishment. Includes pre-trial detainees, persons confined in mental institutions, convicted prisoners, and persons kept in custody after their sentence has expired.
o Farmer v. Brennan (1994) 8th A Test: 1) Deliberate indifference to a 2) substantial risk of 3) serious harm.
o Holding: The prison official must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must draw that inference.”
§ Evidence that a risk is longstanding or pervasive could be enough to persuade the jury that the prison official had ‘actual knowledge’ of risk.
§ It is the official’s responsibility to prove that he was unaware of a substantial risk that was obvious.
§ Prison officials may escape liability if they responded reasonably to a risk but nonetheless failed to successfully avert the harm.
o Note: This is a SUBJECTIVE standard (unlike 4A.)
o Clem v. Lomeli, (9th Cir. 2009) Jury Instructions
o Rule: Jury instructions warrant reversal only where the error was prejudicial.
§ The DI standard also includes a failure to act, therefore jury instructions requiring an affirmative action were prejudicial.
o Reversed and remanded.
1A / Public Employee Speech: §1983 free speech claims most often involve a public employee who as been fired on account of his/her speech.
· Factors include whether speech was a matter of legitimate public concern (if yes then speech is afforded greater protection), BUT public employee’s freedom of speech is nonetheless more limited than that of the general public (balancing interest of individual with interest of state).
§Connick v. Myers (1983): when a survey isn’t enough…
o Analysis: If an employee is not speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern (Not whether concern was voiced in public arena, but whether public would be concerned if they knew about it.) then there is not necessarily a 1st A. claim. The questionnaire was circulated within the office only, and concerned only office politics.
Other factors: Is the functioning of the office endangered by plaintiff’s actions? When close working relationships are essential to carrying
