Civil Rights Litigation Attack Outline

Law Outlines > Civil Rights Litigation Outlines

This is an extract of our Civil Rights Litigation Attack document, which we sell as part of our Civil Rights Litigation Outlines collection written by the top tier of University Of Virginia students.

The following is a more accessble 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:

Right/Cause of Action
SS 1983
? 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
? 4A
? When: Active seizure (arrest) of person
? Standard: Objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Graham
? 5A
? 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
? 8A
? When: Post-conviction
? 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.

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Rights Litigation Outlines.