Law Outlines Civil Rights Litigation Outlines
This is a 27-page primary outline and 3-page attach outline of Civil Rights Litigation as taught by Prof. Michael Collins at UVA Law. Professor Collins taught the course using materials he compiled himself, and topics covered include types of actionable constitutional violations, implied causes of action, sovereign immunity, immunities of individual officers, types of remedies available under Section 1983, doctrines of abstention, habeas corpus, and topics related to preclusion, jurisdiction, and...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Rights Litigation Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Civil Rights Litigation, Fall 2016
Professor Michael Collins, UVA Law
Cause of Action/Rights Violation
I. “Ordinary” versus “Constitutional” Torts
Constitutional Hooks: Due process, excessive force, private violence, takings, taxes (non-exhaustive)
Due Process:
Official negligence is not sufficient to support 1983, even without post-deprivation proceedings (Daniels, Davidson: cannot argue state system is constitutionally inadequate for failure to remedy negligence). Official recklessness may be.
Parratt territory: If DPC claim stems from a random and unauthorized departure from required state pre-deprivation proceedings, must proceed to post-deprivation proceedings before filing 1983. Parratt. (see Zinermon category 3B, Parratt exception to Monroe)
Monroe territory: For all other DP claims (including BoR/incorporation, SDP), like other constitutional violations, may file 1983 without regard to state post-deprivation process. Zinermon (see categories 1, 2, 3A) – Monroe principle
Excessive Force: determine seized/non-seized/detained, stage of criminal process, then look to outline/chart to determine standard (4A, 5A/14A, 8A)
Monroe: straight to court under 1983
Private Violence: No DPC claim for mere deprivation of reputation (Paul), failure to protect from a violent private party (DeShaney), failure to enforce a restraining order against a violent private party (Castle Rock), but see Collins comment on prisons/recklessness
Takings are not complete/ripe (i.e., can’t sue under 1983 or other relevant CoA) until:
A) Both (1) the taking and (2) the decision on compensation are final (Williamson)
OR
B) Futility: Pursuing state remedies or appeals on either (1) or (2) would be futile because there is state precedent on point that would render it unsuccessful
OR
C) Removal: State/Defendant removes state proceedings on (1) or (2) to federal court (Chicago)
Preclusion: State court decisions on the constitutionality of the taking and the justness of the compensation are issue preclusive in a later 1983 suit. San Remo
Tax Injunction Act – Federal courts prohibited from enjoining, suspending, or sustaining state taxes where there is a “plain, speedy, and efficient remedy” to be had in state courts
Due Process, Official Deprivations, and State Tort Law
Due Process
Parratt v. Taylor (1981 p. 180) Random & Unauthorized Deprivations: Ripeness
FACTS: state prison lost prisoner’s package. State remedies would be available, but sued under 1983 for DP
Required Process: negligent deprivation of property is covered by DPC (overruled by Daniels, negligence is not a violation), and can sustain a 1983 claim, however, where the negligence results from a random and unauthorized deviation from established procedures, no pre-deprivation process is required and post-deprivation process suffices.
Ripeness: there is no DP violation unless there are problems with post-deprivation process. At that point, Monroe kicks in and no need for exhaustion of state remedies.
Hudson v. Palmer (1984 p. 187): extends Parratt to random and unauthorized intentional deprivations of property – (1) no need for pre-deprivation process even if intentional and (2) violation cannot occur until post-post-deprivation process
Daniels v. Williams (1986 p. 188):
FACTS: prisoner slips & falls on pillow, says guards negligently left it there. State law prevented recovery. Filed 1983 action for DP violation (state system is constitutionally inadequate to remedy negligence)
Negligence by government does not constitute a DPC violation (overruled part of Parratt) – constitution doesn’t require pre- or post-deprivation process for simple negligence
Davidson v. Cannon (1986 p. 189)
FACTS: 1 prisoner beat another; guards allegedly negligent in not stepping in
RULE: official negligence is not a violation of procedural due process (must be willful). So constitution requires no compensation mechanism.
Zinermon v. Burch (1990 p. 192) DP Violation Categories:
(1) BoR Rights (as incorporated by 14A): Follow Monroe; state law remedies are irrelevant. Parratt does not apply.
(2) Substantive Due Process: Follow Monroe; state law remedies are irrelevant. Parratt does not apply.
DPC Rights that “can’t find a comfortable textual home”
(3) Due Process Clause “Simpliciter” (Procedural Due Process)
(A) Deprivations resulting from absence of, or insufficiency of, or policy/custom of lack of adherence to constitutionally required pre-deprivation proceeding. Follow Monroe and go to 1983. Parratt does not apply. See Ingraham.
(B) (cellar) Deprivations resulting a random and unauthorized departure from constitutionally sufficient state proceedings. Follow Parratt & progeny. No DP violation unless problem with state post-deprivation proceedings.
Ingraham v. Wright (1977 p. 194) - Pre- vs. Post-Deprivation DP
FACTS: kid punished at school by paddle with no pre-paddle hearing, parents not notified
Pre-Deprivation Hearing: 1983 can sustain actions claims of insufficient pre-deprivation hearing under DPC, but not all deprivations require pre-deprivation hearing, so you may lose on the merits
Post-Deprivation Hearing: where DPC merely requires post-deprivation hearings, must first exhaust state remedies before 1983 claim can be sustained
APPLICATION: no DPC right to pre-deprivation hearing here, so no more 1983 claim
Private Violence and the Constitution
Cf. Prisoner cases
Paul v. Davis (1976 p. 194) No DPC Interest in Reputation
FACTS: D puts P’s name on flyer identifying him as a shoplifter. P sues, DP violation of liberty through destruction of reputation.
RULE: DPC does not protect interest in reputation.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County DSS (1989 p. 197) No Right to Protection
FACTS: father beats child into coma, mother sues county for not protecting the child
Non-Private Actor Rule: the DPC (even SDP) does not give you the right to protection from violence by private actors
Constitutional Minimum:...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Rights Litigation Outlines.
This is a 27-page primary outline and 3-page attach outline of Civil Rights Litigation as taught by Prof. Michael Collins at UVA Law. Professor Collins taught the course using materials he compiled himself, and topics covered include types of actionable constitutional violations, implied causes of action, sovereign immunity, immunities of individual officers, types of remedies available under Section 1983, doctrines of abstention, habeas corpus, and topics related to preclusion, jurisdiction, and...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started