Civil Rights Litigation Attack Outline
This is a sample of our (approximately) 4 page long Civil Rights Litigation Attack notes, which we sell as part of the Civil Rights Litigation Outlines collection, a A package written at University Of Virginia in 2016 that contains (approximately) 33 pages of notes across 2 different documents.
The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.
Civil Rights Litigation Attack Revision
The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Rights Litigation Outlines. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
Right/Cause of Action
Constitutional Violation o Due Process Type Violations & Zinermon/Parrat: Does DP claim come from a random and unauthorized departure from pre-deprivation proceedings?
If yes: No 1983 until state post-deprivation proceeding complete. Parratt.
If no: May file 1983 immediately. Monroe. o Private Violence: No DP 1983 claim (failure to protect/enforce order, reputation) o Excessive Force & Law of Police: identify scenario/amendment, then apply standard
When: Active seizure (arrest) of person
Standard: Objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Graham
When: Interrogation or confession
Standard: Malicious/sadistic to shock the conscience Chavez
SDP (14A states, 5A feds)
When: Non-seizure situations with free people; people detained without conviction (pretrial, mental ward)
Non-Force Standard: Deliberate indifference, or shocks the conscience if no time to deliberate. Lewis
Force Standard: Kingsley actually governs w/ objective reasonableness, but see Shocks conscience per Lewis
Non-Force Standard: Deliberate Indifference to known risk
Force Standard: Malicious, sadistic, for purpose of harm
See also Equal Protection (apply force in a discriminatory way)
Standards: Objectively reasonable < Deliberate Indifference < Malicious &
Sadistic = Shocks the Conscience = Wanton Infliction of Pain o Takings: 5A
Ripeness: Both (1) taking and (2) decision on just compensation must be final and not subject to any further review in state court. Williamson
But see: Futility argument, removal of state case to federal court.
Preclusion: Losing in state court on either issue is preclusive. San Remo Hotel o Taxes: Tax Injunction Act: Must use state remedy for tax challenges. Exception to Monroe.
Federal Statutory Violations o Rights Creating Language Test: (1) Does statute expressly demonstrate Congressional intent to create enforceable right for this P? (2) Evidence that Congress didn't want to provide 1983 enforcement? If any mention of private remedy, rebuttable presumption of no 1983. o Preemption: If federal statute preempts but fails Rights Creating Language Test, no 1983, but may sue for injunction of state law under 1331/EPY. Verizon Maryland.
****************************End Of Sample*****************************
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Rights Litigation Outlines.