Years ago, I argued a section 1983 case for the plaintiff before the Seventh Circuit (Richman v. Sheahan, 270 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 2001)), where the primary issue on appeal was whether the defendant deputy sheriffs who allegedly used excessive force against the decedent in court were protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity or instead only […]…

By virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts addressing § 1983 claims must apply the claim preclusion law (res judicata) and issue preclusion law (collateral estoppel) of the forum state where there are relevant prior state judicial proceedings. This means that § 1983 litigators must know their state’s preclusion law or suffer the consequences. […]…

Suppose a state court judge allows a municipal court clerk to issue arrest warrants and to set bonds using the judge’s signature stamp, as well as to set a schedule requiring cash-only bonds regardless of an arrestee’s ability to pay. Suppose further that doing so is unconstitutional because these acts of the clerk are not […]…

The Issue We know that in both tort law litigation and section 1983 litigation a plaintiff must allege and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s conduct was a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injury. What happens in a section 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force case where the plaintiff knows that one […]…

The Noerr-Pennington Doctine and Section 1983 Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which is informed by the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, “parties who petition the government for governmental action favorable to them cannot be prosecuted under the antitrust laws even though their petitions are motivated by anticompetitive intent.” Video Intern. Production, Inc. v. Warner-Amex Cable Communications, Inc., […]…

Registration is now open! 3-day Webinar Series | April 21 – 23, 2021Eligible for 12.5 hours of general CLE credit, including 1.25 hours of ethics  Liability arising out of §1983 claims continues to present challenges for courts across the country, and the Supreme Court has a large impact in this dynamic area of law. Join us […]…

The Basics of Younger v. Harris Younger abstention is among the more important abstention doctrines that are typically applied to federal court section 1983 claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. This doctrine, based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is grounded on considerations of federalism and comity. In its simplest terms, this is […]…