For What Wrongs

Question 1

§1983 and Rights

Answer 1

• 1983 isn’t itself a source of rights, it’s just “a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United States Constitution and federal statutes that it describes” (SCOTUS, Baker v. McCollan (1979)

Question 2

Context and Scope of Rights

Answer 2

• context can influence the scope of rights that the Supreme Court recognizes

Question 3

Ways of Accomodating Fear of $ Damages Adversely Impacting Gov Ops

Answer 3

• one way = adopt transsubstantive rules limiting availability of damages as a remedy
• other way = cabin scope of underlying substantive right

Question 4

Kinds of 1983 Claims Under 14th Am Due Process

Answer 4

1- guarantees of Bill of Rights made applicable to states by 14th Am

2 - substantive component of due process - bars certain gov actions regardless of fairness of procedures used to implement them

3 - procedural due process - provides guarantee of fair procedures where state deprives indiv of life liberty or property

Question 5

Concerns that Arise Under Procedural Due Process

Answer 5

1- has a cognizable life, liberty, or property interest been denied?

2- was the loss of that protected interest fairly attributable to gov, as opposed to private actor?

3 - if gov did deprive indiv of life, liberty or property, was it done w/o due process of law?

Question 6

Paul v. Davis - Facts

Answer 6

• 1976
• case with the plaintiff labeled a shoplifter by chief of police - warned at work, but not fired
• filed 1983 claim for damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief for due process violation

Question 7

Paul v. Davis - Rule

Answer 7

• Defamation (damage to reputation) does not rise to a due process violation
  -> therefore not remediable through § 1983

-must have defamation + alteration/removal of right/status recognized under state law to trigger due process.

-More broadly, 14A + §1983 does not constitutionalize all torts by state actors under color of state law.

Question 8

Paul v. Davis - Reasoning

Answer 8

• Rehnquist
• trying to avoid having “every legally cognizable injury” by state official acting under color of state law qualify as 14th Am violation (14th Am = not a “font of tort law to be superimposed upon” state systems)
• pl tried to argue reputation special - Rehnquist instead restricts Constantineau to its facts + says need defamation plus alteration/extinguishment of right or status recognized by state law

Question 9

Paul v. Davis - Dissent

Answer 9

• Brennan & Marshall
• decision allows law enforcement to label individuals as “criminals” without any process or trial
  -Definition of “liberty” in 14A must be broad in a free society, + Court willfully misreading precedent (deprivation of right separate from defamation was not required in any of the cited precedents)

Question 10

Method of Eval’ing 14th Am Protection Until 1971

Answer 10

• importance of the interest to the individual

Question 11

Board of Regents v. Roth

Answer 11

• SCOTUS 1972
• set out new approach for determining if interest protected by 14th Am
• rejected a procedural due process claim on the ground that the interest at issue (continued employment as a non-tenured teacher) was not “life, liberty, or property”
• emphasized nature of interest invaded, not just its importance, was critical threshold q
• led to dev of catalogue of “protectable interests”

Question 12

14th Am - Fed and State Law Interactions Re Protectable Interests

Answer 12

• modern inquiry has led to challenging interactions of fed and state law
  – 14th Am = part of fed Constitution + meaning presumptively determined by fed law, but the “liberty” and “property” interests that due process protects are defined, at least in part, by state law -> gets into weird grey area which body of law determines the content of these terms

Question 13

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty Dept of Social Services - Facts

Answer 13

• 1989
• 4-yr-old severely beaten by father
• Had been victim of repeated abuse since at least 26 months earlier, when social services first contacted (at least 3 hospitalizations in this window, but authorities did not take coercive intervention)
• Mother + 4 yr old brought a §1983 suit against county, dept of soc. Serv., + various officials – alleged deprived of liberty w/o due process by failure to intervene to protect 4 yr old against risk of violence of which they knew or should’ve known

Question 14

DeShaney - Holding

Answer 14

“[N]othing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the state to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.”

(i.e. no DPC violation here b/ private actor)

Question 15

DeShaney - Focus for Liberty and DPC Eval

Answer 15

• all justices agreed Joshua was deprived of liberty, but court focused on second part of dp inquiry – whether the deprivation was attributable to the state or whether private actor (father) responsible for the deprivation

Question 16

DeShaney - Reasoning

Answer 16

• Rehnquist
• Limitation on state power to act, not guarantee of a certain minimum level of safety and security
  -Forbids state from depriving indivs of life, + liberty or property w/o due process, but “its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the state to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means”
• “As a general matter, then, we conclude that a state’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause”
• Some argument that duty to protect arose out of certain “special relationships” created or assumed by the state wrt particular indivs, but majority restricted this to indivs within the physical custody of the state (not those of whose condition state has knowledge of + intends to help)
• Opinion also argued intervening too early would’ve produced opposite due process suit, + also that should leave it to Wisconsin to change its tort laws if it didn’t like the result in this case (shouldn’t impose on the state through 14th Am.)

Question 17

DeShaney - Brennan

Answer 17

• dissent
• Viewed prison + involuntary commitment cases as ones establishing principle that “if a state cuts off private sources of aid and then refuses aid itself, it cannot wash its hands of the harm that results from its inaction” (argued here, state had monopolized child services such that it cut off private aid)
• But would’ve said no liability in cases where failure to intervene resulted from “sound exercise of professional judgment”

Question 18

Alternative Theories for Holding Gov Liable for Not Preventing Torts

Answer 18

• Gov = responsible when injury occurs while pl in state custody or when gov has special relationship to pl (see Youngberg v. Romeo (1982) (deals w/ involuntary confinement); Farmer v. Brennan (1994) (prisoners))
• State is also liable when the risk of injury at private hands is “state created”

Question 19

Parratt v. Taylor - Facts

Answer 19

• 1987
• Prison inmate ordered $23.50 of hobby materials – was in segregation + not allowed to receive them when they arrived -> materials were signed for by two employees of the prison hobby center, but couldn’t be found once Taylor was released
• Taylor filed a §1983 damages action against the warden + the hobby manager of the prison, claiming defs negligently deprived him of property w/o due process in violation of 14th Am.

Question 20

Parratt v. Taylor - Ruling

Answer 20

• reversed a lower court decision granting relief

Question 21

Parratt v. Taylor - Holdings + Reasoning

Answer 21

• Rehnquist
• State of mind – case had raised q of whether proof of intentional or reckless wrongdoing required
  -> SCOTUS answered no state of mind req., §1983 pl has no obligation to establish state of mind unless it’s required by the underlying constitutional violation (ex: discrimination requires proof of animus)
• Negligent deprivation of due process – underlying con claim here was due process, q of whether could be negligently deprived of this -> R didn’t elaborate but said yes, could be negligently deprived of property w/o due process
• Process Due: “Nothing in [the 14th Am.] protects against all deprivations of life, liberty, or property by the state”, just deprivation w/o due process -> wound up turning on whether Nebraska’s postdeprivation tort remedy sufficed for process -> SCOTUS found it did
  ->Says hearing doesn’t always need to be provided before deprivation (can have postdeprivation opportunity)

Question 22

Hudson v. Palmer - Issue

Answer 22

• whether postdeprivation remedies adequate in cases of intentional wrongdoing

Question 23

Hudson v. Palmer - Facts

Answer 23

• Hudson – officer at correctional facility -> conducted “shakedown” search of Palmer’s cell, found ripped pillowcase -> disciplinary proceedings brought + Palmer made to pay for the pillowcase
• Palmer brought §1983 action alleging Hudson ripped the pillowcase (intentionally destroyed noncontraband personal property) – Hudson denied allegation + won summary judgment

Question 24

Hudson v. Palmer - Holding

Answer 24

• Burger
• said logic of Parratt applied even though intentional instead of negligent (predeprivation procedure equally impracticable), + held “unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available”

Question 25

Parrett v. Taylor - Question Raised Regarding Sov Imm and State Torts

Answer 25

• txtbook discussed this as an issue that was open for a while, but shut down in Daniels v. Williams
• Traditionally, states asserted right to claim sovereign immunity in their own courts when sued for torts committed by their employees + attempt to evade this restriction in fed court precluded by 11th Am. -> garden variety torts by gov employees traditionally subject to compensation by state only to extent that state has waived sovereign immunity

-Parratt + Hudson suggested way around such restrictions – if state fails to provide adequate compensatory remedy for tortious acts of its employees, those actions could possibly become procedural due process violations -> could bring §1983 suit by characterizing the tort as an instance of procedural inadequacy
->Would need to be against indiv employee rather than state, but not an issue b/c states typically indemnify their employees

Question 26

Daniels v. Williams - Facts

Answer 26

• 1986
• Daniels = inmate, tripped over pillow left on staircase by corrections officer -> alleged deprived of liberty interest in freedom from bodily hurt +, since sov imm blocked ordinary tort recovery, claimed no adequate remedy, therefore deprivation of liberty w/o due process of law -> therefore compensable under §1983 -> SCOTUS disagreed with this

Question 27

Daniels v. Williams - Holding

Answer 27

• Rehnquist opinion
• held due process “simply not implicated by a negligent act” causing injury to life, liberty or property

EXPLICITLY OVERRULED PARRATT

Question 28

Daniels v. Williams - Reasoning

Answer 28

• due process designed to protect indiv from arbitrary exercise of gov power, not provide fed remedy for ordinary negligence

Question 29

Daniels v. Williams - Parratt

Answer 29

• explicitly overruled “to the extent that it states that mere lack of due care by a state official may ‘deprive’ an individual of life, liberty or property under the Fourteenth Amendment”
• Prof noted b/c of this change, Parratt wouldn’t require a subsequent postdeprivation hearing if the same facts arose after Daniels

Question 30

Remaining Remedies After Daniels

Answer 30

• book says intentional torts remain compensable under §1983
• also remains possible recklessness or some other intermediate form of culpability might suffice

Question 31

Davidson v. Cannon - Facts

Answer 31

• Davidson sued state prison officials for failure to protect him from another inmate (had sent notice to prison officials, but they negligently failed to protect him in time)

Question 32

Davidson v. Cannon - Holding

Answer 32

• rejected this claim on the authority of Daniels (negligence on the part of the prison officials -> b/c negligence, no suit)

Question 33

Negligence and Postdeprivation

Answer 33

• Prof pointed out b/c they’re not treating these as constitutional violations, the postdeprivation hearing wouldn’t be required (they’re not treating it as the state depriving you of something under the 14th Am.)

Question 34

Davidson v. Cannon - Brennan

Answer 34

• dissent
• agreed “merely negligent conduct” not a deprivation of liberty for due process clause,
• BUT “official conduct which causes personal injury due to recklessness or deliberate indifference, does deprive the victim of liberty within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment”

Question 35

Davidson v. Cannon - Blackmun

Answer 35

• dissent, joined by Marshall
• mere negligence ordinarily not actionable under 1983, but argued in some cases, governmental negligence does qualify as the abuse of power that the 14th Am. was designed to guard against

Question 36

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co

Answer 36

• 1982
• emphasized that deprivation of property pursuant to established state procedures could violate due process, regardless of postdeprivation remedies