AND · 42usc1983:deprivation
Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred (Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); sub-elements branch by the underlying constitutional/statutory provision.
Exact element source
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and lawsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [306:402] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 4 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (4). Excluded context examples:Dodson v. Polk County — 628 F.2d 1104 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon — 934 F.3d 1076 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · not counted Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 1 | 1 | Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff — 935 F.3d 633 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff — 935 F.3d 633 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · proved (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/lower-court · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dodson v. Polk County — 628 F.2d 1104 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsAlleged deprivations (right to counsel, Eighth Amendment, due-process denial of state-created appeal right) from counsel's motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal as frivolous; merits never examined. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon — 934 F.3d 1076 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits party: four enrolled tribal members cited by deputies (Bunim, Sansoucie, Ochoa, Lopez); count: individual members' claims arising from traffic stops, citations and vehicle impoundments in Indian country; subject: party=four enrolled tribal members cited by deputies (Bunim, Sansoucie, Ochoa, Lopez); count=individual members' claims arising from traffic stops, citations and vehicle impoundments in Indian country The panel decides the predicate question that all four citations were issued in Indian country (Section 36 is within the reservation; 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a)) and that the claims are cognizable, then vacates and remands; it does not itself hold that any right secured by the Constitution or laws was violated, and takes no position on defenses including immunity. | Unspecified route | California cannot enforce state law that regulates-but does not prohibit-tribal members' conduct inside a reservation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1076-01; Unicode character offsets [11708:11826] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1a92b573cb7b7718761366c75498701e624dc65384760a7512cf1375ad1434ab. |
| Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff — 935 F.3d 633 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · proved (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed; 42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws | not Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; party: Mayor Debe Hollingsworth (individual defendant; verdict in her favor not challenged); count: race discrimination in termination (42 U.S.C. § 1981 right enforced through § 1983); subject: party=Mayor Debe Hollingsworth (individual defendant; verdict in her favor not challenged); count=race discrimination in termination (42 U.S.C. § 1981 right enforced through § 1983) Jury verdict for the mayor on the race-discrimination claim; Ridgell did not challenge it on appeal and the panel treats it as conclusive. | mayor fired a Black department head for missed deadlines and tardiness while white comparators were only disciplined; jury found she did not discriminate | On July 31, Hollingsworth terminated Ridgell for "unsatisfactory work performance," based on his failure to meet these deadlines.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0633-01; Unicode character offsets [887:1016] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fbf6dcd13eb0bdda26113728d6940a1477a3c2c1e8440f032f7c91b9d8e994be.Ridgell testified that Robert Tucker, a Caucasian male, regularly arrived late to work but had never been disciplined.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0633-01; Unicode character offsets [3136:3254] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fbf6dcd13eb0bdda26113728d6940a1477a3c2c1e8440f032f7c91b9d8e994be.The verdict establishes as a matter of law that Hollingsworth did not unlawfully discriminate, so the finding against the City cannot be harmonized unless there was race discrimination by some other official or combination of officials.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0633-01; Unicode character offsets [7757:7993] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fbf6dcd13eb0bdda26113728d6940a1477a3c2c1e8440f032f7c91b9d8e994be. |
| Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff — 935 F.3d 633 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed; 42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: other city officials, in particular council member Lloyd Holcomb; City of Pine Bluff; count: race discrimination in termination (42 U.S.C. § 1981 right enforced through § 1983); theory: no municipal damages liability when no municipal official committed the underlying wrong (City of Los Angeles v. Heller); subject: party=other city officials, in particular council member Lloyd Holcomb; City of Pine Bluff; count=race discrimination in termination (42 U.S.C. § 1981 right enforced through § 1983); theory=no municipal damages liability when no municipal official committed the underlying wrong (City of Los Angeles v. Heller) Verdict against the City reversed for insufficiency: with the mayor exonerated, no evidence showed that any other official (or combination of officials, Speer) discriminated, so there was no underlying violation for which the City could answer. | council member who switched his vote and let the mayor's second termination stand; no evidence his vote was based on race | He later met with the City's human resources director and Hollingsworth and learned about the problems with Ridgell's work performance and tardiness.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0633-01; Unicode character offsets [10530:10679] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fbf6dcd13eb0bdda26113728d6940a1477a3c2c1e8440f032f7c91b9d8e994be.There was no evidence to contradict Holcomb's testimony, and Ridgell presented no other evidence supporting an inference that Holcomb voted against reinstatement because of Ridgell's race.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0633-01; Unicode character offsets [11357:11545] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fbf6dcd13eb0bdda26113728d6940a1477a3c2c1e8440f032f7c91b9d8e994be.The only municipal official or employee whom Ridgell cited to the jury as a wrongdoer was Hollingsworth.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0633-01; Unicode character offsets [9312:9416] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fbf6dcd13eb0bdda26113728d6940a1477a3c2c1e8440f032f7c91b9d8e994be.A municipality can act only through its employees, so a plaintiff seeking damages against a municipality under § 1983, for race discrimination that violated § 1981, must show that a municipal official or employee racially discriminated against him.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0633-01; Unicode character offsets [4620:4868] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fbf6dcd13eb0bdda26113728d6940a1477a3c2c1e8440f032f7c91b9d8e994be.There is insufficient evidence that any other city official, or a combination of Hollingsworth and other municipal officials or employees, discriminated against Ridgell based on race.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0633-01; Unicode character offsets [11671:11854] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fbf6dcd13eb0bdda26113728d6940a1477a3c2c1e8440f032f7c91b9d8e994be.Because there was no race discrimination in violation of § 1981, the City cannot be held liable for damages under § 1983.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0633-01; Unicode character offsets [11855:11976] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fbf6dcd13eb0bdda26113728d6940a1477a3c2c1e8440f032f7c91b9d8e994be. |
| Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsUnderlying claims (patronage dismissal / First Amendment; due process) never examined; only whether the suit may proceed. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Williams v. Reed — 604 U.S. 168 (2025) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits party: 21 unemployment-benefits claimants; count: due process and Social Security Act claims that the Department unlawfully delayed processing benefits claims; subject: party=21 unemployment-benefits claimants; count=due process and Social Security Act claims that the Department unlawfully delayed processing benefits claims The Court takes no position on whether the delays violated due process or the Social Security Act (n. 4). | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
More importantly, the statute does not draw any distinction between abusive and nonabusive federal violations.
Collins v. City of Harker Heights — 503 U.S. 115 (1992) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 (42usc1983: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
More importantly, the statute does not draw any distinction between abusive and nonabusive federal violations.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [2843:2953] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred (Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); sub-elements branch by the underlying constitutional/statutory provision.
not-required
Separate proof of "abuse of governmental power" apart from the underlying constitutional violation (Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992))
No source quotation recorded.
not-required
Specific state-of-mind requirement in § 1983 itself beyond what the underlying constitutional or statutory right requires (Parratt v. Taylor; Daniels v. Williams)
No source quotation recorded.