42 U.S.C. § 1983 · A outline

Because there is no respondeat superior in § 1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009)).

2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

Under West v. Atkins (487 U.S. 42 (1988)), traditional definition requires that the defendant exercised power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law". Note Polk County v. Dodson (454 U.S. 312 (1981)) later reversed the Eighth Circuit's Dodson holding on public defenders, holding a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.

5 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases

• AND Lugar prong 2: party charged with the deprivation may fairly be said to be a state actor

  Second prong of Lugar: whether the private or hybrid entity may fairly be treated as a state actor under the public-function test, state-compulsion/nexus test, symbiotic-relationship test, or joint-action test.

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  state-actor/publicly-designated-nonprofit-with-mandated-public-officials-on-board		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — satisfied

• AND Lugar prong 1: deprivation caused by exercise of a right, privilege, or rule of conduct created by the State

  First prong of Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)): the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible.

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  no-nexus/personnel-decision-not-governed-by-state-rule		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — not

Remedy-specific damages issue retained for CASE compatibility. Compensatory damages require proof of compensable loss; nominal damages and other remedies have distinct rules. Article III standing is separately represented by standing-injury and is not synonymous with a damages award.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Added by Pub. L. 96-170 (1979) to overturn District of Columbia v. Carter (409 U.S. 418 (1973)) and bring D.C. officials within § 1983.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

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.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

• OR Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right to a fair trial (Brady / fabricated evidence / unduly suggestive identification)

  Violated when officers fabricate evidence forwarded to prosecutors, rig witness identifications, or suppress material exculpatory/impeachment evidence (Brady).

  3 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  brady-suppression-by-police/suggestive-photo-array-procedures-withheld-from-prosecutor		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f4th/141/417 — Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — satisfied
  fabricated-evidence/coerced-false-witness-statement-forwarded-to-prosecutor		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f4th/141/417 — Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — satisfied
  suggestive-identification/lineup-disguising-mismatch-with-witness-description		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f4th/141/417 — Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — satisfied

• OR Protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause (including stigma-plus under Paul v. Davis)

  Reputational injury alone is insufficient under Paul v. Davis; requires "stigma-plus" (defamatory governmental statement coupled with extinguishment or distinct alteration of a state-recognized right or employment status).

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  stigma-plus/defamation-with-demotion-not-discharge		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — satisfied

• OR Protected property interest under the Due Process Clause (Board of Regents v. Roth)

  Property interests are created and defined by independent sources such as state law, rules, or mutually explicit understandings that support a legitimate claim of entitlement.

  3 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  property-interest-public-employment/constructive-demotion-to-insubstantial-duties		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — satisfied
  property-interest-public-employment/constructive-discharge-without-resignation		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — not
  property-interest-public-employment/denial-of-discretionary-promotion		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — satisfied

• OR Deprivation of Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments

  Splits into excessive force (Whitley/Hudson malicious-and-sadistic test) and conditions of confinement / medical care (Farmer v. Brennan subjective deliberate indifference test).

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  excessive-force/beating-of-restrained-prisoner-minor-injury		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 — satisfied
  failure-to-protect/inmate-left-unsecured-with-unrestrained-inmate-in-understaffed-unit		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 — applied/lower-court
  Unspecified variant	No variant assigned in the database.	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 — applied/merits

• OR Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights

  Requires purposeful discrimination / disparate treatment of similarly situated comparators (or facial classification) without the requisite level of scrutiny justification.

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  sex-discrimination-public-employment/no-disparate-treatment-of-comparators		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f3d/475/0645-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — not
  Unspecified variant	No variant assigned in the database.	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/475/0645-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — applied/merits

• OR Deprivation of First Amendment rights (free speech, retaliation, free exercise, petition)

  Pesci v. Budz (11th Cir. 2019) is an actual First Amendment merits ruling, rejecting a civil detainee’s newsletter challenge under a modified Turner test. This is a scoped civil-detention speech example, not a universal test for retaliatory arrest or public-employee speech. The unrelated Olivier/Heck passage is removed.

  0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  Unspecified variant	No variant assigned in the database.	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — applied/merits; /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — applied/merits

• OR Deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights (unreasonable search, warrantless entry, false arrest, excessive force)

  Evaluated under Graham v. Connor objective reasonableness from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.

  4 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  excessive-force/no-seizure-driver-drove-away-from-stop		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — not
  excessive-force/reasonable-force-on-fleeing-erratic-resisting-arrestee		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — not
  strip-search/child-examined-for-bruises-without-reasonable-suspicion		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f3d/189/0808-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied
  warrantless-home-entry/child-abuse-investigation-on-weak-anonymous-tip		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f3d/189/0808-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied

• OR Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process (protected liberty/property interest + inadequate process)

  Two-step inquiry: (1) whether plaintiff was deprived of a protected liberty or property interest (see `.due-process-property` and `.due-process-liberty`), and (2) whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient (Mathews v. Eldridge).

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  property-interest/benefit-entitlement-not-yet-established		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/us/526/0040-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 — not
  Unspecified variant	No variant assigned in the database.	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — applied/merits

• OR Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process

  Protects fundamental rights and guards against executive abuse of power that "shocks the conscience" (County of Sacramento v. Lewis), but does not constitutionalize ordinary state tort law or impose an affirmative workplace-safety duty absent custody (DeShaney; Collins).

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  affirmative-duty/government-employer-unsafe-workplace		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/us/503/0115-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 — not

Added by Pub. L. 104-317, § 309(c) (1996) to abrogate Pulliam v. Allen (466 U.S. 522 (1984)) with respect to injunctive relief against judges unless a declaratory decree was violated or unavailable.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

Under Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police (491 U.S. 58 (1989)), neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" under § 1983 when sued for damages, though state officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief (or in their personal capacities for damages under Hafer) are "persons".

2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

Satisfied by (1) an express municipal policy, (2) a widespread practice/custom so permanent and well settled as to have the force of law, (3) an act of an official with final policymaking authority (Pembaur; Praprotnik), or (4) deliberate indifference in failure to train/supervise (`policy.failure-to-train`).

2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

• OR Municipal failure to train or supervise amounting to deliberate indifference (City of Canton v. Harris)

  Under City of Canton v. Harris (489 U.S. 378 (1989)) and Connick v. Thompson (563 U.S. 51 (2011)), failure to train is actionable only where it amounts to "deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the [untrained employees] come into contact" and a municipal employee actually committed an underlying constitutional violation.

  2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  derivative-of-deprivation/derivative-claim-falls-with-officer-claim		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — not
  failure-to-train/deliberate-indifference-to-employee-safety		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/us/503/0115-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 — satisfied
  failure-to-train/no-showing-need-for-training-was-obvious		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — applied/alternative

Two-prong test (which courts may address in either order under Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)): (1) whether the official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) whether the unlawfulness of the conduct was "clearly established" at the time so as to give fair warning (Hope v. Pelzer; Mullenix v. Luna).

9 merits instance blocks; 5 distinct cases

JUDICIAL_PREREQUISITE: the statutory phrase is only a context anchor. Article III injury, traceability, and redressability are judicial standing requirements; prospective relief requires a real ongoing or imminent injury, not proof of a compensatory damages amount. This is not an additional quoted statutory test.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

Length of limitations period and tolling are borrowed from state residual personal-injury law (Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989)), while accrual date is governed by federal law (Wallace v. Kato; Reed v. Goertz).

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

Functional approach: absolute immunity attaches to judicial acts (Pierson v. Ray), prosecutorial advocacy intimately associated with the judicial phase (Imbler v. Pachtman), and legislative acts (Bogan v. Scott-Harris), but not administrative/investigative executive functions.

2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

Non-element rejected by the Supreme Court in Collins: § 1983 does not require proof of an "abuse of governmental power" separate and apart from proof of a constitutional violation.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Under Allen v. McCurry (449 U.S. 90 (1980)) and 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts hearing § 1983 actions give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect they would have in the courts of that State, provided there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Bars damages suits in federal court against a State or state officials in their official capacities (absent waiver, whereas § 1983 does not abrogate sovereign immunity under Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979)), but does not bar personal-capacity suits (Hafer) or Ex parte Young prospective injunctive relief.

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

Section 1983 applies only to action under color of State, Territorial, or D.C. law; purely federal action requires a Bivens or Fifth Amendment theory with federal governmental participation.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Under Preiser v. Rodriguez (411 U.S. 475 (1973)) and Heck v. Humphrey (512 U.S. 477 (1994)), a prisoner cannot use § 1983 to seek immediate/speedier release or damages/relief that would necessarily imply the invalidity of an extant conviction or sentence unless the conviction has been reversed, expunged, or invalidated.

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

Under Johnson v. Jones (515 U.S. 304 (1995)) and Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372 (2007)), a court of appeals on interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity reviews abstract questions of law (taking the district court's assumed facts as true unless blatantly contradicted by the record).

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Procedural preservation rule applied in § 1983 appeals.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Under Thompson v. Clark (596 U.S. 36 (2022)), a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim under § 1983 requires showing that the criminal prosecution ended without a conviction.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases