WHAT IS A 1983 ACTION?
Posting Date: April 14, 2022
A “1983 action” refers to a civil lawsuit filed under section 1983 of the United States Code. This section provides individuals with the ability to sue state or local officials, including police officers and prison guards, who violate their constitutional rights. In simpler terms, it means that if a government employee, such as a police officer or prison guard, violates your constitutional rights, you can sue them for damages in a federal civil court.
The 1983 action is a powerful tool for individuals who have had their constitutional rights violated by government employees. This includes cases of police brutality, wrongful imprisonment, and violations of due process. The section was enacted in 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act and was originally intended to provide protection for newly freed slaves. However, since then, it has been used to protect the civil rights of all individuals. One of the most famous examples of a 1983 action is the case of Rodney King. In 1991, Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles police officers following a high-speed chase. The beating was captured on video and sparked widespread outrage. In the aftermath, King filed a 1983 action against the police officers involved. The case went to trial, and the officers were ultimately acquitted of criminal charges. However, King was awarded $3.8 million in damages in his civil suit. Another example of a 1983 action is the case of Terence Crutcher. In 2016, Crutcher, an unarmed black man, was shot and killed by a police officer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The officer was charged with manslaughter but was ultimately acquitted. Crutcher’s family filed a 1983 action against the city and the police department, alleging that the officer’s actions violated Crutcher’s constitutional rights. The case was settled for $6 million. A third example of a 1983 action is the case of Albert Florence. In 2005, Florence was arrested on a warrant for an unpaid fine. During his processing at a county jail in New Jersey, he was subjected to two strip searches. Florence sued the jail officials, arguing that the strip searches violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of the jail officials.
While the 1983 action is a powerful tool for individuals seeking justice for constitutional violations, it is not without its limitations. One of the biggest limitations is the doctrine of qualified immunity. This doctrine provides government officials with immunity from civil lawsuits for actions taken in the course of their official duties unless their actions violate “clearly established” constitutional rights. This means that even if a government official violates your constitutional rights, they may not be held liable if those rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the violation.
In recent years, there has been significant debate over the doctrine of qualified immunity and whether it should be reformed or abolished. Critics argue that the doctrine allows government officials to escape accountability for their actions, even when those actions are clearly unconstitutional. Proponents of the doctrine argue that it is necessary to protect government officials from frivolous lawsuits and to ensure that they can carry out their duties without fear of being sued.
Despite its limitations, the 1983 action remains an important tool for individuals seeking justice for constitutional violations. It allows individuals to hold government officials accountable for their actions and to seek compensation for the harm they have suffered. Whether or not the doctrine of qualified immunity is reformed or abolished, the 1983 action will continue to play an important role in protecting the civil rights of individuals in the United States. At Paul Padda Law, our lawyers are highly experienced in handling civil rights cases of all types. If you’re thinking about a 1983 action or some other type of civil rights case, give us a call today at (702) 707-3000. Civil rights cases can be difficult. For this reason, having the right lawyer by your side is very important. Give us a call and let us help you.
A lot of people may not think that they need uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance (“UM/UIM”) coverage in Nevada, but it’s one of the most important types of insurance there is and can help protect you financially if you’re ever hit by an uninsured or underinsured driver on the road. Every day we get in…
Most serious injuries and deaths in truck accidents happen to the people in passenger vehicles, rarely the truck driver. With that in mind, it’s essential to know how to share the road to decrease the chances of: An accident with an 18-wheelerAn accident with a United States Postal Service truckFiretruck accidentsSchool bus accidentsFedEx and/or UPS…
Premises liability cases are among the most common types of personal injury cases. With that in mind, there are many misconceptions about what premises liability is, how likely you are to win a premises liability case, and who’s ultimately responsible for injuries sustained while on commercial or private land. If you’ve suffered injuries while on…
There are more than 15,000 nursing home facilities in the United States. Sadly, there are many instances of nursing home abuse and neglect. If you suspect your loved one’s nursing home facility commits acts of elder abuse, it’s in your best interest to: Know how to recognize the signs of elder abuse in nursing homes…
Car accidents often have a lasting impact on victims. While some injuries heal within a few months or years, other injuries may require ongoing care for the foreseeable future. With that in mind, it’s possible to pursue a claim for future medical expenses after an accident. However, it can sometimes be an uphill battle. Working…
Each year, countless tourists flock to world-famous Las Vegas hotels, resorts, and casinos. With that in mind, it’s not a question of “if” a hotel accident will happen, but rather “when” it will occur. Hotel owners, operators, managers, and staff owe every visitor a reasonably safe environment. If they breach their duty of care and…
