How 42 USC §1983 Claims are Adjudicated Against Judges

1. The defendant acted under color of law;
   • the defendant was using power that he/she possessed by virtue of state law
     • "state law" = any statute, ordinance, regulation, policy, custom, or usage of any state/territory
     • "state" includes all subdivision (eg, counties, municipalities, state agencies, county agencie,s municipal agencies, etc.)
2. The defendant deprived you of a federal constitutional/statutory right (while doing so); and
3. The defendant caused the damages that you suffered¹

• ¹ note: some circuits do not require this third element

"By the plain terms of § 1983, two – and only two – allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under that statute. First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law."

"The traditional definition of acting under color of state law requires that the defendant in a § 1983 action have exercised power ‘possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.’"

"[S]tate employment is generally sufficient to render the defendant a state actor...

[G]enerally, a public employee acts under color of state law while acting in his official capacity or while exercising his responsibilities pursuant to state law.”"

• Whether the defendant was on duty
  • see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988)
  • see Bonenberger v. Plymouth Tp., 132 F.3d 20 (3d Cir. 1997).
• Whether the defendant was acting for work-related reasons
  • see Basista v. Weir, 340 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1965)
• Whether the defendant's actions were related to his or her job as a government official
  • see Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809 (3d Cir. 1994)
• Whether the events took place within the geographic area covered by the defendant's department
  • see Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809 (3d Cir. 1994)
• Whether the defendant identified himself or herself as a government official
  • see Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 130 (1964)
• Whether the defendant was wearing official clothing
  • see Abraham v Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999)
• Whether the defendant showed a badge
  • see Bonenberger v. Plymouth Tp., 132 F.3d 20 (3d Cir. 1997).
• Whether the defendant was wearing official clothing

• Version A: Creating a Danger
  • The injury was foreseable
  • The defendant acted with either:
    1. conscious disregard of a great risk of serious harm to plaintiff; or
    2. deliberate indifference
  • The two parties related in a way that distinguished the plaintiff from the public at-large.
    • ie, the plaintiff wasn't just some bystander
  • The defendant either:
    1. created a danger to plaintiff; or
    2. made plaintiff more vulnerable to harm

  "a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct; (2) the state actor acted in willful disregard for the safety of the plaintiff; (3) there existed some relationship between the state and the plaintiff; and (4) the state actors used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed"

• Version B: Procedural Due Process
  1. Must establish a liberty/property interest which is protected by the Constitution;
  2. The government deprived you of that interest; and
  3. A lack of process occurred.

  "To state a procedural due process claim, the Class must allege "(1) a liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the government; [and] (3) lack of process.""

• All persons similarly-situated should be treated alike.

"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 457 U. S. 216 (1982)"