Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

§ 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit law review

Expand Messages
  • vicki mangum
    I ve attached a dissertation on filing a 1983 complaint in federal court for those who need this information to avoid getting dismissed out.
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I've attached a dissertation on filing a 1983 complaint in federal court for those who need this information to avoid getting dismissed out.
    • Virgil Cooper
      Hello Vicki and others on this list, Just a quick comment. Those of us who have done years of legal and constitutional research are aware that a “1983 Civil
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
      • Randy
        Hi Virgil, I would have to disagree with you on your statement that 1983 is only for enforcing 14th Amendment violations. 14th Amendment Section 1. All persons
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Virgil,

          I would have to disagree with you on your statement that 1983 is only for enforcing 14th Amendment violations.

          14th Amendment
          Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          As can be seen above the 14th Amend does protect those that don't claim to be citizens.

          Title 42, § 1983 of the U.S. Code provides a mechanism for seeking redress for an alleged deprivation of a litigant’s federal constitutional and federal statutory rights by persons acting under color of state law. Section 1983 reads as follows:

          Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
          custom, or usage, of any state or territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected,
          any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
          thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
          secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
          injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
          for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer
          for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive
          relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated
          or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section,
          any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia
          shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

          As can be seen above the statute protects citizens and other persons.

          Randy Hunt


          Virgil Cooper wrote:

          Hello Vicki and others on this list,

           

          Just a quick comment.  Those of us who have done years of legal and constitutional research are aware that

          a “1983 Civil Rights Complaint” is an automatic admission that the complainant is relying on the Fourteenth

        • mn_chicago
          Tuesday 6 January 2009 No to citizens, but okay to person, aka an artificial person, paticularly in the United States. ... You emphasized or other
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 6, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Tuesday 6 January 2009

            No to citizens, but okay to "person," aka
            an artificial person, paticularly in the
            "United States."

            > any citizen of the United States or other
            > person within the jurisdiction thereof to
            > the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
            > or immunities secured by the Constitution
            > and laws,

            You emphasized "or other person," and stopped
            short of including "within the jurisdiction
            thereof." That means the "person" subject to
            the "jurisdiction thereof."

            You chosen emphasis on "Constitution" is why?

            Only the federal constitution applies to all
            their good citizens and persons within that
            jurisdition.

            Of course the statute protects both

            Anything else, don't matter.

            From the other jurisdiction,

            mn
          • Virgil Cooper
            Hello Randy and others on this list, The high sounding wording you quote aside, not only is Section 1983 rooted in the very flawed Fourteenth Amendment, but
            Message 5 of 6 , Jan 7, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
            • Roger Hattman
              But, it in a practical sense, it appears as though the only venue for redress of wrongs against state actors is our state (local) courts, which seem to me to
              Message 6 of 6 , Jan 7, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                But, it in a practical sense, it appears as though the only venue for redress of wrongs against state actors is our state (local) courts, which seem to me to be far less nearly impartial than the federal.  Moreover, in Federal, we can redress wrongs against our stronger state rights via concurrent jurisdiction.  If we do not use 1983, are there other legal means for obtaining remedy other than our own, possibly corrupt, local courts?

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.