Civil Rights claims & Abstention

Question 1

1983 claim requirements

Answer 1

(1) action against person
(state official sued in official capacity for injunction or declaratory judgment; state official in personal capacity for damages; local officials sued officially/personally; local government entities)
(2) acting under color of state or local law
(according with state or local law, or contrary to the law if in course of employment)
(3) for the deprivation of any rights privileges or immunities under the Constitution or federal statutory law

Question 2

1983 claim attorney’s fees availability

Answer 2

(1) if plaintiffs prevail, reasonable fees
(2) if plaintiffs lose, and court finds that claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation - defendants may get fees

Question 3

11th amendment

Answer 3

prohibits private citizens from suing their or another state as an entity
also prohibits suing state agencies
also prohibits suing state officials in official capacity for damages

Question 4

ex parte Young doctrine

Answer 4

allows plaintiffs to sue state officials in official capacity for injunction or declaratory judgement IF:
(1) there are no ongoing judicial proceedings against federal plaintiff by state official defendant
AND
(2) state official is violating federal law (eg, is enforcing an unconstitutional state statute)

Question 5

1983 suits for damages against local defendants must show

Answer 5

(1) that the action was taken according to a custom or policy
(2) that violated the constitution or federal law

custom or policy shown by:

(a) legislative decisions
(b) policymaker’s decisions
(c) failure to train its employees

Question 6

qualified immunity doctrine

Answer 6

applies unless: if a reasonable officer should have known her actions violated the constitution

no immunity from prospective relief (ie, injunctions or declaratory judgments)

doesnt apply to private guards at private prisons

Question 7

Pullman abstention

Answer 7

causes federal courts to stay proceedings challenging state law or regulation when

(1) state law or regulation is unclear AND
(2) possible that state court decision could resolve and make it unnecessary for federal court to resolve federal question

after Pullman abstention by federal court, plaintiffs must file in state court. if they get an unfavorable ruling, may proceed to litigate federal issue in federal court; or case dismissed

Question 8

Burford abstention

Answer 8

applies when plaintiff seeks injunction or declaratory judgement in a suit that would

(1) require federal court review state administrative decision making and fact finding in
(2) local matters typically subject to state regulation (ie, natural resource or property regulation)

Question 9

Younger abstention

Answer 9

(1) when federal plaintiff seeks injunction or declaratory judgement against state actor
(2) while criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings ongoing against her

if Younger abstention applies, federal court should dismiss the suit.

Younger doctrine does not apply when the criminal prosecution is

(1) brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment OR
(2) plaintiff can show there was no meaningful opportunity to raise the constitutional claim as a defense in the state proceeding

Question 10

hypo: state or local entity imposes an arguably illegal tax

Answer 10

federal court shall dismiss under Tax Injunction Act
federal court shall not enjoin the assessment, levy, or collection of any tax under state or local law
WHERE a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy may be had in state courts