Understanding Section 1983
Part 2: 42 U.S.C. §1983 Lawsuits. The easiest way to see what type of lawsuit you can file under Section 1983 is to review the law itself:
Every person who, UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, OR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 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 . . . . (emphasis added)
Most of the law is clear, but some of the words that are used here have specific legal meanings established by years of judicial interpretation, and these words might not be easily understood. Here we'll discuss specific words and a few federal cases to glean what types of suits can be filed under Section 1983 suits.
Although originally written to assist African-Americans, any race has access to the courts to file suit under this law. The law references ''any citizen of the United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof.'' This literally means that you can use this law even if you're not a U.S. Citizen, Martinez v. City of Los Angeles, 141 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir.1998), because you only have to be ''within the jurisdiction'' of the United States when your rights were violated. In other words, you only have to be physically present inside the United States or its territories.
Not every situation you encounter falls under the purview of a Section 1983 lawsuit: there are two specific requirements that HAVE TO be met. (1) There must be ''deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,'' which means that whatever you're suing about must violate your FEDERAL rights, such as those that are secured by the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments, as well as laws passed by the U.S. Congress. These are explained further in §A below.
And (2), your Federal rights must have been violated ''under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory.'' We've whittled this phrase down to just saying ''under color of state law,'' which means that the violation of your rights must have occurred at the hands of a State or Local (City, County, Town, Parish etc.) Official. We explain this further in §B below.
§A. FEDERAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Section 1983 doesn't assist prisoners to combat every way prison officials mistreat them; you have to connect that the official's actions violated federal rights. Prisoners primarily file suit under Section 1983 to enforce rights secured by the U.S. Constitution, commonly referred to as ''constitutional rights,'' but they also use Section 1983 to enforce rights secured under federal statutes. Although there are seemingly more lawsuits filed to enforce constitutional rights than there are statutory rights, statutes such as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA,'' 42 U.S.C. §2000-cc et seq.), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (''ADA," 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.), prevents prison officials from discriminating against prisoners because of a religious belief or a disability, respectively. Religious freedom is a right secured under the First Amendment, but RLUIPA (and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, ''RFRA,'' 42. U.S.C. §2000-bb et seq. for federal prisoners only) provides GREATER protections than the First Amendment as it relates to religious activity and observations in the prison setting.
“Prisoners are allowed to use Section 1983 suits to challenge conditions or treatment while they’re in prison. ”
Prisoners are allowed to use Section 1983 suits to challenge conditions or treatment while they're in prison. They cannot use Section 1983 to appeal the reasons they're in prison, or to challenge their sentences, or to gain parole or release from prison. For any of those challenges in federal court, they'd have to file for a writ of habeas corpus, which is an entirely different type of court action not discussed here.
§B. ''UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW''
Lawsuits based on Section 1983 only authorizes you to file the lawsuit if the actions were taken ''under color of state law,'' meaning that your rights must have been abrogated by a state or local official (including the county, city, town or other local government). For those people in a state prison or correctional facility, actions or omissions from a correctional officer, warden/superintendent, or medical staff are all done "under color of state law.''
This requirement doesn't mean that the underlying reason you're suing about needs to be ''legal'' under respective state law. See, generally, Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961). All it means is that the person you're suing was working for a state or local government at the time. But you can't sue federal employees under a Section 1983 lawsuit because federal employees operate under color of FEDERAL law, not State law. To sue a federal employee, a prisoner needs to file a Bivens action (named for the case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)).
A prisoner can even use Section 1983 to sue a private citizen (like a prison dentist or a physician's assistant) who mistreats the prisoner while working with or for the prison. This rule came from West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a private contract-doctor providing treatment to a prisoner can be sued under Section 1983. Although the doctor wasn't an employee of the prison, he was hired to perform health services at the prison so his conduct qualified as being ''under color of state law.''
Given the ineptitude with which prisons are being run today, coupled with the unethical and oftentimes immoral actions by prison staff to justify their ineptitude, a working knowledge of Section 1983 is important for those prisoners who will stand for what they know to be right.
