1983

Question 1

Who applies?

Answer 1

#s LEAD Aging for all of us.
———–
1981, 1983, 1985
flSa
ePa
ADa (pub serv) [emp = 15+]
ADEA

Question 2

Who does it not apply to?

Answer 2

1983 Officially sets you free.
———–
No private persons, Officials acting under color.

Question 3

What’s UNIQUE about 1983?

Answer 3

1983 our policy free & no responde a-yee!
———–
(a) It’s the door opener for all const. claims.
(b) Allow suit against officials only - ‘color of law’ (no private indivs).
(c) No respondeat superior.

Question 4

S/L

Answer 4

4 yrs.

Question 5

Can you sue individs?

Answer 5

1983 Officially sets you free.
———–
Yes, officials acting under color of law. (not private persons).

Question 6

What’s 3 UNIQUE things about 1983?

Answer 6

1. Only Officials acting under color of law.
2. Official’s act (its custom/policy) = cz.
3. No respondent superior (can’t sue b/c LG employed a discriminator.)

~confirmed.
– No Resp Sup. Why? b/c sue only for custom or policy (focus on the entity).
– Only sue individs in their official capacity.

Question 7

4 elements to establish prima facie case.

Answer 7

1983 = 4 x C = Const, Color, Custom, Cz
———–
1. Deprived rt secured by Const or Fed Law.
2. Under color of law.
3. In furtherance of a custom or policy.
4. LG official’s act must be cz of the harm.

Question 8

To be actionable, how many acts in furtherance of custom or policy are required?

Answer 8

A single instance is sufficient if done by indiv w/ policy making pwr.

Question 9

State 2 defenses.

Answer 9

Absolute + Qualified Immunity.

Question 10

What is absolute immunity?

Answer 10

1. BCC acting in legis. But not decisions affecting individs, ex. employ
2. Judicial + prosecutor acting in capacity immune for damages but not injunct.

Question 11

What is qualified immunity?

Answer 11

Immune if:
1. Performing discretionary function &
2. No reas person wd have known action unlawful, i.e., not so blatant a reas competent official wd have known.

Question 12

How is qual imm more than a defense?

Answer 12

It’s a right to be free of suit Ʃ immediately appealable.

Question 13

How PL can get dismissed?

Answer 13

Must exhaust State remedies.

Question 14

How do you exhaust your State remedies?

Answer 14

If you have a claim under a State law, file there. Fed court wants only Federal constitution claims.

Question 15

Bottom line use of 1983.

Answer 15

1. Against Officials & LGs for custom or policy.
2. As door opener for 1981 + other const. claim.
3. LEO failure to train via custom/policy.

Question 16

What damages are available?

Answer 16

1. Punis vs. Officials (not LGs).
2. ## JEFF’s Lost Benes (jury, equit, front/back, fees, lost benes)Just like 1981.

Question 17

How determine LEO force excessive?

Answer 17

Consider severity of the crime, threat, resistance, flight,
the relationship between the need and amount of force used, and the extent of the injury inflicted.

Question 18

What amendment is often seen in LEO claims?

Answer 18

4th amendment.

Question 19

When is LEO denied qualified immunity?

Answer 19

Gratuitous & excessive force against a passive, controlled, obedient suspect.

Question 20

What is acknowledged about any arrest?

Answer 20

Inherently involves some degree of physical coercion or threat.
De minimis force = qualified immunity.

Question 21

What is the purpose of 1983?

Answer 21

It’s true service is to allow an individ to sue a govt for a deprivation of constitutionally protected rts.

Question 22

What are the 2 elements of 1983?

Answer 22

1) Someone acting under color of law.
2) Deprived you of a constitutional right.

Question 23

What damages are available in 1983 claim?

Answer 23

1. Punis vs. Official acting under color.
2. Actual expenses/dmgs only.
   Why?
   Jury cannot place a dollar value on a constitutional right.

Question 24

What rights does 1983 protect?

Answer 24

None. It is not a source of rights.
It is a channel to enforce rts found elsewhere.

Question 25

42 USC 1983 ----------- Why is it sometimes confusing that 1983 itself is a cause of action?

Answer 25

42 USC 1983 ----------- #1 - It has elements. Color of law, deprived rts. #2 - It procedurally is stand alone, i.e., no need to comply w/ FS 768.28.

Question 26

42 USC 1983 ----------- Is 1983 a stand alone claim?

Answer 26

42 USC 1983 ----------- No, not substantively. --- Procedurally it is stand alone such that there is no need to first comply w/ FS 768.28 which requires a trial court to find an evidentiary basis for a punitive dmgs claim.

Question 27

42 USC 1983 ----------- What other theories of recovery offer 1983's damages?

Answer 27

Punis + JEFF + Lost Benes ----------- All #s + A.M. ALE ----------- 1981, 1983, 1985 [A.M. ALE - drinking in the a.m.? that's a lot of liquid] Adea fMla (3 yrs) + interest Ada fLsa (3 yrs) Epa (3 yrs)

Question 28

42 USC 1983 ----------- Can LG get AF in 1983?

Answer 28

42 USC 1983 ----------- Only is shown to be frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.

Question 29

CIVIL RTS ----------- How show you have standing to sue for civil rights?

Answer 29

CIVIL RTS ----------- Standing in Concrete makes u Re-Dress. ----------- Suffered an injury or invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete & particularized.

Question 30

CIVIL RTS ----------- We know 5th & 14th amends prohibit deprivation of life, liberty & property w/o due process of law. What are the 2 ways courts have interpreted this?

Answer 30

CIVIL RTS ----------- 1) Procedural DP 2) Substantive DP

Question 31

CIVIL RTS ----------- What is substantive dp?

Answer 31

CIVIL RTS ----------- Protection of "fundamental" rights. Rights implicit in liberty. Ex. 1st Amendment, Unreas search & seizure

Question 32

CIVIL RTS ----------- Re: subst. dp Can govt officials be sued in their private capacity or official?

Answer 32

CIVIL RTS ----------- Either. A suit in official capacity is a suit vs. LG. May get dismissed b/c redundant w/ claims vs. LG.

Question 33

42 USC 1983 ----------- To maintain 1983 vs. LG, what must be established?

Answer 33

42 USC 1983 ----------- violation of constitutional rts from custom or policy. ----------- Not from respondeat superior. LG can't be held liab solely by virtue of the employment relationship w/ the offender.

Question 34

42 USC 1983 ----------- -describe the acts for which LG is liable.

Answer 34

42 USC 1983 ----------- Liab is limited to acts that are properly speaking, acts of LG. I.E., acts which LG has officially sanctioned or ordered.

Question 35

42 USC 1983 ----------- -- who makes the custom or policy?

Answer 35

42 USC 1983 ----------- Final policy-making authority decision maker or legis body.

Question 36

42 USC 1983 ----------- Who is immune?

Answer 36

42 USC 1983 ----------- ABSOLUTE (LEGISLATIVE) IMMUNITY --- Local legislators, city commissioners, are absolutely immune from suit for their legislative activities. Ask yourself - is the act complained of part of the legis process? Ex. passing resolution.

Question 37

42 USC 1983 ----------- What types of immunity are available to public officials?

Answer 37

42 USC 1983 ----------- Absolute - legislative immunity (passing a resolution) Qualified immunity - discretionary.

Question 38

42 USC 1983 ----------- How prove qualified immunity?

Answer 38

42 USC 1983 ----------- 1) Acting w/i scope of discretionary authrority. 2) Was not a violation of a clearly established law.

Question 39

42 USC 1983 ----------- What did the

Answer 39

42 USC 1983 -----------

Question 40

42 USC 1983 ----------- Once & for all - Can a private individual be sued under 42 USC 1983?

Answer 40

42 USC 1983 ----------- YES - if acted under color of law. ME- the indiv HAS TO BE NAMED INDIVIDUALLY b/c if name in official capacity it is a suit vs. LG. If sue LG & indiv in official capacity = redundant . ----------- Foshee v. Health Management