In Federal Case, Don’t Forget Causation, Federal Law

While it may seem obvious to some, we often find that potential clients who call our office to discuss a federal civil rights claim overlook both the need to allege causation and identify a federal law that is violated.  

In other words, a defendant in a federal civil rights case must have caused the deprivation or violation of a federal right.  A person can cause a violation of rights by doing a wrongful act, by authorizing or assisting another person’s wrongful act, or by failing to do something that he or she is supposed to do. Leer v. Murphy (9th Cir. 1988) 844 F. 2d 628, 633; Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village (9th Cir. 1984) 723 F. 2d 675, 680-681; Johnson v. Duffy (9th Cir. 1978) 588 F. 2d 740, 743; Rizzo v. Goode (1976) 423 U.S. 362, 373, 96 S. Ct. 598; 46 L. Ed. 2d 561.  For example, this may be a police officer who hits a person or the doctor who does not prescribe adequate medical treatment.

Depending on the circumstances and type of remedy sought, a person may or may not be able to hold higher level officials and supervisors liable for actions by lower level employees.  When a § 1983 suit is for money damages, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is directly at fault; in other words, the defendant’s action or inaction must be the actual cause of the violation of rights.  Leer, supra, 633- 634.

Supervisory officials are not liable for money damages just because they had authority over a lower level employee who violated a person’s rights.  To hold a supervisor liable for money damages, the person usually must show the supervisor had sufficient personal involvement in the violation. Johnson, supra, 743; see also Ortez v. Washington County, Or. (9th Cir. 1996) 88 F. 3d 804, 809; Taylor v. List (9th Cir. 1989) 880 F. 2d 1040, 1045.  However, if state law imposes vicarious liability on a supervisor, then vicarious liability may be imposed in a § 1983 case. Johnson, supra, 744.

There are several ways to show that a supervisor or higher-level official was personally involved in a deprivation of rights. A person could present evidence that a supervisor ordered the wrongful action, agreed to the action, or knowingly allowed it to happen. Leer, supra, 633.  A judge may infer that a higher-level official had actual knowledge of a problem if it was part of an official policy or well-known practice, or if a pattern of staff misconduct had been brought to the attention of a supervisor who then did not address the problem. Taylor, supra, 1045; see, e.g., Barry v. Ratelle (S.D. Cal. 1997) 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1239.

Plaintiff must be sure to allege that this violation caused the deprivation of a right protected by the U.S. Constitution or other federal law. Parratt v. Taylor (1981) 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S. Ct. 1908; 68 L. Ed. 2d 42], overruled on other grounds in Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327, 328, 106 S. Ct. 662; 88 L. Ed. 2d 66]; see Leer, supra, 632-633. 

A federal civil rights action may also challenge the constitutionality of a state statute or rule. Skinner v. Switzer (2011) 562 U.S. 521, 131 S. Ct. 1289; 179 L. Ed. 2d 233.

Before filing a § 1983 lawsuit, a person should first determine what specific federal rights have been violated or infringed. A court will dismiss a § 1983 case that concerns matters that are not protected by federal law or that allege only a violation of state law. See, e.g., Davis v. Bucher (9th Cir. 1988) 853 F. 2d 718, 720 (isolated and limited disclosure of personal information more appropriate for state tort action); Hernandez v. Denton (9th Cir. 1987) 833 F. 2d 1316, 1319 (upholding dismissal of “libel and slander” claims as non-constitutional wrongs); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero (9th Cir. 1987) 830 F. 2d 136, 139 (verbal harassment or abuse does not amount to constitutional deprivation); Johnson v. Barker (9th Cir. 1986) 799 F. 2d 1396, 1399 (dismissing claims of “false arrest” and “malicious prosecution” as state tort claims); Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman (1984) 465 U.S. 89, 124-125, 104 S. Ct. 900; 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from ordering declaratory or injunctive relief based on a violation of state law); Ritschel v. City of Fountain Valley (2006) 137 Cal. App. 4th 107, 115, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 48 (police officer’s failure to comply with state law was not actionable in a § 1983 suit).

The main source of federal rights is the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Amendments known as the Bill of Rights, although the law often gives prison officials broad power to restrict people’s rights.

Lastly, it merits mention that in contrast to criminal law violations, in a federal civil rights case, there is no specific “state of mind” requirement.  However, to prove many types of constitutional violations, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants acted with a particular state of mind. Crawford-El v. Britton (1998) 523 U.S. 574, 592, 118 S. Ct. 1584; 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (rejecting heightened standard of proof by clear and convincing evidence for mental state element in § 1983 cases).

While this article appears on our website, it would be a mistake to attribute all of its content to us.  Instead, we wish to thank the Prison Law Office in Folsom, California for much of the content found in their excellent treatise, California Prison and Parole Law Handbook.