42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Civil Rights Lawsuits

The U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals certain civil rights and liberties. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in specific contexts such as employment, education, and public accommodations. If a state actor deprives a person of their constitutional rights, that person may have a cause of action through a civil rights lawsuit in either state or federal court under Section 1983.

This article focuses on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a section of the U.S. Code enacted in 1871 that provides a civil cause of action against state and local government officials who violate a person’s constitutional rights. If your civil rights have been violated, an attorney can help you understand your legal options and pursue justice. Contact a civil rights attorney in your area to protect your rights and explore potential legal remedies.

The Text and Development of Section 1983

Often referred to simply as Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows a person to sue state and local government officials for violating their civil rights.

Section 1983 states:

“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 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 in an action at law …”

To summarize, any person is liable when they act under the color of law in such a way that it deprives either a U.S. citizen or a person within the United States jurisdiction of the rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed to them by the Constitution or by federal or state law. Civil rights violations occur when a person or entity deprives another of the rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or by law. These violations can lead to legal action under Section 1983, allowing individuals to hold responsible parties accountable through civil rights claims.

What Does “Acting Under Color of Law” Mean?

Acting under color of law means a person was using power or authority granted by a government entity. When they misuse it, they may expose themselves to civil action.

For example, an off-duty police officer who uses their badge and authority to make an unlawful arrest is still acting under color of law. A state official who enforces an unconstitutional policy while performing their official duties acts under color of law.

Historical Development of Section 1983

Although enacted in 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not become a tool to prevent abuses by government officials for almost 90 years. In 1961, the U. S. Supreme Court decided the case of Monroe v. Pape. In its ruling, the Supreme Court listed three uses for the statute:

• Overriding state laws
• Providing remedies where state laws are inadequate
• Providing federal remedies where state remedies are available in theory but not in actuality

Section 1983 has evolved and expanded since 1961. In Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded Section 1983 to permit civil suits against municipal entities and local governments, as well as individual state actors. Municipalities can be held liable only when the constitutional violation results from an official policy, custom, or practice. It does not automatically apply because they employed someone who committed the violation.

State officials found liable under Section 1983 have included police officers, other law enforcement officers, state and local government officials, and private parties acting under color of law. In certain situations, injunctive relief against a state official may be granted.

Bivens Claims Against Federal Officials

Section 1983 applies only to state and local government actors. Under a separate Supreme Court ruling in 1971, federal agents may be sued for constitutional violations in limited circumstances through what are called Bivens claims. These are distinct from Section 1983 claims and have been significantly limited by the Supreme Court in recent years.

What Is Considered a Violation of Civil Rights?

Civil rights are intended to protect people from unfair treatment. They concern the rights, privileges, and immunities enumerated in the Constitution.

Federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent address the civil rights of individuals. Civil rights protect people from discrimination based on their personal characteristics. Examples of federal civil rights protections include:

• The right to secure housing without unfair treatment or discrimination
• The right to public education
• The right to vote
• The right to be free from discrimination or harassment in the workplace

In 1964, the federal government passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination in areas such as employment, education, voting, and public accommodations. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of the following:

• Race
• Color
• Religion
• Sex
• National origin

For example, denying an Asian American employee a promotion due to their race is a civil rights violation. An employer who denies a worker a promotion based on race or ethnic considerations has committed unlawful employment discrimination. Other examples include:

• A prison guard’s unlawful use of force against a prisoner
• Police misconduct, such as unlawful arrest, racial profiling, or the use of excessive force
• Government officials restricting free speech in the workplace

This is not an exhaustive list.

Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties

Although the terms are often used interchangeably, there is a difference between civil rights and civil liberties. Civil rights protect individuals from discrimination based on personal characteristics. Civil liberties involve basic constitutional rights and freedoms. Civil liberties do not consider personal characteristics (race, gender, etc.) like civil rights. They are designed to protect people from unwarranted or overreaching government action.

Examples of civil liberties include:

• Freedom of speech (First Amendment)
• Freedom of religion (First Amendment)
• Freedom of the press (First Amendment)
• Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment)
• The right to a fair trial (due process) (Fifth Amendment and 14th Amendment)

There are many other types of civil liberty violations.

Civil Lawsuits vs. Criminal Prosecution for Violations

The person deprived of their rights may file a civil rights lawsuit against the person who denied them. Civil cases differ from criminal cases. A criminal case is a lawsuit filed by the federal or state government on behalf of the United States public. Government officials prosecute the defendant in a criminal case in either state courts or federal district courts. A victim in a criminal case does not have a responsibility to press charges against the offender.

A civil case arises when the plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to perform a legal duty owed to the plaintiff. For example, if the plaintiff slipped and fell on a defendant’s property, the plaintiff could file a personal injury civil action (a tort claim) against the defendant.

Respecting one’s rights established by the Constitution, or under federal or state law, is a legal duty. A civil rights violation is a civil action initiated in either state or federal court. A civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a civil action, even though the same conduct might also result in criminal prosecution.

There are situations in which violating an individual’s civil rights may result in criminal charges being filed against the state actors responsible. These cases are typically prosecuted in federal court under 18 U.S.C. § 242.

The same conduct can give rise to both a criminal prosecution under § 242 and a civil lawsuit under § 1983. These are separate proceedings with different burdens of proof. Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil cases require proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Civil Rights Lawsuits and Sovereign Immunity

Under common law, sovereign immunity bars actions against the state and its agents. To sue the federal government or a state or local government, the government entity must waive its sovereign immunity.

In Chisholm v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the lawsuit brought by an out-of-state resident against the state of Georgia. The court held that Georgia lacked sovereign immunity in this case. In response, Congress passed the 11th Amendment, which bars private citizens from suing states in federal court under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

How Section 1983 Works With Sovereign Immunity

While Section 1983 creates rights for private citizens under federal law to initiate lawsuits, the Eleventh Amendment’s sovereign immunity protections still apply. This means:

• States themselves generally cannot be sued for monetary damages under Section 1983
• State officials can be sued in their individual capacity for damages
• State officials can be sued in their official capacity for injunctive relief (a court order to stop unconstitutional conduct)
• Municipalities and local governments can be sued directly for damages under Section 1983, as they do not enjoy the same sovereign immunity as states

State and local officials are granted qualified immunity. This means they are immune from individual liability unless plaintiffs show that the official violated a clearly established constitutional right.

The test is “would a reasonable person have known that their actions violated the plaintiff’s statutory or constitutional rights?” As a practical matter, if a police officer holds a reasonable belief that their actions were lawful, they most likely will not be held liable for their actions pursuant to Section 1983.

Requirements for Section 1983 Relief

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Section 1983 to mean that a plaintiff must prove two elements to prevail on their claim:

• The defendant acted under the color of state law
• The act(s) (or failure to act) of the defendant deprived the plaintiff of their particular rights under either the laws of the United States or the U.S. Constitution

Whether a government employee acted under the color of law depends on whether the person acted, or purported to act, in the performance of their official duties under any applicable law.

When civil rights issues arise under the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes, it can be difficult to establish that a right exists or that the person infringing that right was acting “under color of law.” Those bringing suit against the government must also comply with the applicable statute of limitations. Federal law does not have a limiting statute for Section 1983 claims. Instead, claims must be brought under the state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims. The average time limit is two years in most states, although the statute ranges from one to seven years depending on the jurisdiction.

Proving Damages in a 1983 Case

Proving an injury in a government case requires showing that your civil rights were violated and that the accused was acting under instruction of a government agency. The most common defense against a 1983 case is that the officer acted outside the scope of their authority and violated department policy.

To establish the facts of your case, you need evidence of a violation and proof that the officer was following government policy. You may need witness statements, internal documentation, and proof of actual damages.

The Supreme Court case Carey v. Piphus held that plaintiffs must prove actual damages beyond the constitutional violation itself. Even when a procedural due process violation is proven, plaintiffs cannot simply presume they suffered a compensable injury. They must demonstrate actual harm.

Preservation of evidence is essential for bringing and proving civil rights cases. To ensure that all documentation is provided, claimants should get legal advice as soon as they believe a violation has occurred.

Damages Available in a 1983 Suit

Claimants in a 1983 civil rights complaint can request:

• Economic damages, including medical bills, lost wages, and property damages
• Non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering and emotional distress
• Punitive damage if the officer displayed reckless or callous behavior

Plaintiffs can also request injunctive relief, such as an order forcing defendants to cease certain behavior. Declaratory relief, which asks the court to define the parties’ civil rights in a dispute, is available depending on the circumstances. If plaintiffs show that a violation occurred but cannot prove actual injury or compensable harm, courts may award nominal damages “not to exceed $1.”

Get Legal Help Understanding 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Civil Rights Lawsuits

Although Section 1983 authority has expanded over time, such claims remain complicated procedurally. Strict procedural rules must be followed in order to successfully bring a claim in federal court. Contact an experienced civil rights attorney who can review your case and help you prepare an effective claim.