Saturday, May 4, 2024

Private Civil Rights Litigation Federal law

The applicable statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983), provides in relevant part:


    "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured." [.] 

    Section 1983 creates a private right of action, meaning that anyone suffering a covered deprivation of rights may sue the persons responsible, as long as the deprivation came from a Government, State, County, or City Law Enforcement Officer. 

     Moreover, unlike Sections 241 and 242, courts have interpreted Section 1983 not to contain a specific intent requirement, making it easier for plaintiffs to prove violations of the statute. A prevailing Section 1983 Congressional Research Service 3 plaintiff may be entitled to injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and/or money damages. Recovery may include both compensatory damages (designed to compensate the plaintiff for the legal injury) and punitive damages (designed to punish the defendant and deter future misconduct). Similar to Section 242, 

    Section 1983 applies to persons acting “under color of” state law. State and local public safety officers generally act under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983. However, based on concerns that frequent litigation could interfere with the work of law enforcement officers, the courts have created a significant limitation on liability: Under Section 1983, law enforcement officers benefit from qualified immunity from suit. 

    The Supreme Court announced the modern qualified immunity test in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, holding that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages” if they do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” The Supreme Court has explained that qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.

” As a result, courts generally consider qualified immunity early in a Section 1983 case, and if the court finds that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, the defendant is entitled to an immediate interlocutory appeal. A court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity considers two questions: 

(1) whether, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right;” and 

(2) “whether the law clearly established that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances of the case.”

"While that two-step analysis was once considered mandatory, in the 2009 case Pearson v. Callahan, the Supreme Court held that judges could “exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first.”

 In a series of recent cases involving police use of force, the Supreme Court has reversed lower court denials of qualified immunity, stating that “clearly established law” must not be defined at a high level of generality and instead needs to be particularized to the facts of the case. This can create a high bar for plaintiffs. 

The Supreme Court articulated another limitation on

Friday, October 27, 2023

Purpose or Intent to segregate in Education Case Text








The differentiating factor between de jure segregation and so-called de facto segregation . . . is purpose or intent to segregate. Keyes v. Denver School District, 413 U.S. 189, 208 (1973) (emphasis by Court). See also Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 457 n.5 (1979).

Friday, October 13, 2023

Law on the Web

 

Law on the Web

General Legal Sites            Constitutional Law                         Statutory Law                          Case Law                   Administrative Law

Free Legal Research
Resources

(Harvard Univ.)


Legal Resources
(Cornell University)

WA State Legal Resources
(Univ. of Washington)

WA StateLegal Resources
(MRSC)

 

Constitution of the
United States
(National Archives)

Constitution of the United States
(Cornell University)

WA State Constitution
(WA State Legislature)

 

 

United States Code
(Cornell University)

Revised Code of Washington
 (WA State Legislature)

Search the RCW
(MRSC)

WA State City/
County Codes
 (MRSC)

 

U.S. Supreme Court
(U.S. Supreme Court)

U.S. Supreme Court
(Cornell University)

WA State Supreme
/Appellate 
Courtst
(MRSC)



 

Code of Federal Regulations
(Cornell University)

 WA Administrative Code
(WA State Legislature)

Search the WAC
(MRSC)

       Cited from Highland College LibraryAt  https://libapps.s3.amazonaws.com/accounts/72513/images/library-logo-web-gw-v2.png

Monday, October 9, 2023

Washington Legal Research

 

Friday, September 15, 2023

Color Of Law Deprived You of a Constitutional Right....? Then this is for you!!

"Section 242 of Title 18 makes it illegal for someone to intentionally violate a person's constitutional rights or legal privileges while acting under the authority of the law." 

The Department of Justice's, Civil Rights Division, states that the "The meaning of Section 242, acts under "color of law" are not only not only done by federal acts, but state, or local officials within their lawful authority use them too," (DOJ). 

DOJ, also statesthat a Violations committed by those in authority under the guise of legal authority, known as the "color of law," are serious offenses that deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. These violations are specifically outlined in statues and include actions such as false arrests, excessive use of force, and discriminatory treatment. It is essential that justice is served in such cases, as those who act without regard for the law erode the trust and integrity of the justice system", (DOJ).     "The offense carries severe consequences that include imprisonment up to a lifetime or death penalty based on the crime's circumstances and its consequences on the victim," (DOJ). 


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

 "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death," (DOJ). 

 Cite 

Deprivation of rights under color of law, Civil Rights Division (2021), https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law (last visited Sep 15, 2023).

F.T.P

 




Monday, September 11, 2023

Removal or Withdrawal of Counsel

 
Defendant’s Request to Remo            
Although a defendant does not have the right to appointed counsel of his or her choice, the court must engage in an adequate inquiry into a defendant’s request for the replacement of appointed counsel. The court must appoint different counsel if continued representation by original counsel would result in ineffective assistance of counsel, involve a conflict of interest, or otherwise violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. State v. Glenn, 221 N.C. App. 143 (2012) (general dissatisfaction or disagreement over trial tactics insufficient basis to appoint new counsel); State v. Hutchins, 303 N.C. 321, 335 (1981) (“In the absence of any substantial reason for the appointment of replacement counsel, an indigent defendant must accept counsel appointed by the court, unless he wishes to present his own defense.”); see also State v. Williams, 363 N.C. 689 (2009) (defendant only expressed uncertainty to trial judge about why attorney who had previously withdrawn from case had been reappointed and did not make request for substitute counsel; trial judge therefore was not required to hold hearing on removal).
Defense Counsel Request to Withdraw
Possible grounds for a defense attorney’s request to withdraw are many and varied, and are not reviewed here. See, e.g., G.S. 15A-144 (counsel may move to withdraw for good cause). Ordinarily, it will be sufficient if defense counsel indicates to the court the general basis for moving to withdraw, and it is for grounds other than to cause undue delay in the proceedings. A trial court may hold an in camera hearing if necessary to inquire further. See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 487 & n.11 (1978)State v. Yelton, 87 N.C. App. 554, 557 (1987).
Removal by the Court for Cause
In limited circumstances—for example, because of a significant conflict of interest—a court may remove retained or appointed counsel even over the client’s objection. See Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (court may override waiver of conflict of interest and replace counsel preferred by defendant); State v. Rogers, 219 N.C. App. 296 (2012) (court could remove defendant’s retained counsel based on serious potential for conflict of interest even if conflict never materialized).
Removal at the Request of the Prosecutor
A prosecutor may also move to disqualify counsel for the defense if there are legitimate grounds for the motion. See State v. Yelton, 87 N.C. App. 554, 556–57 (1987) (state filed motion alleging conflict of interest where one attorney represented two co-defendants – court held that “in effect, the State merely brings the conflict issue to the court's attention” and although such issues are usually raised by the defendant, “there is no reason why the State may not also raise the question before trial”).


SUBMIT BRIEF/MOTION 
Portions of this entry were excerpted from the 2013 North Carolina Defender Manual, Volume I, Chapter 12.6
.


Featured Posts

Private Civil Rights Litigation Federal law

The applicable statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983), provides in relevant part:      "Every person who, under color of any statute,...