Ss 1983 Action In Federal Court example essay topic

In response to The Civil War Congress enacted The Civil Rights Act of 1871 subsequently known as 42 USC SS 1983. Section 1983, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides a civil remedy for persons who are deprived of constitutionally protected rights by persons acting "under the color of law". The 1961 Supreme Court decision, Monroe vs. Pape, establishes federal courts as the primary enforcers of federally protected rights by holding, that a person may bring a SS 1983 action in federal court without exhausting state remedies. For several reasons, as discussed in Justice Frankfurter's dissent, the majority opinion in Monroe expanded SS 1983 beyond the intent of its draftsmen. Three purposes of SS 1983 where established before Monroe: 1) to override discriminatory state laws; 2) to provide a remedy when state law is inadequate and 3) to provide a remedy when the state recourse is adequate in theory but not available in practice. In Monroe, Justice Douglas purports to establish a fourth aim of SS 1983- to provide a remedy in federal court supplementary to any remedy any state may have.

The majority opinion claims, among other things, legislative history for this invalid expansion of SS 1983. The history behind SS 1983 is limited. However, there is much history for its predecessor the 1871 act. This history undoubtedly provides support for the first three aims of SS 1983 but little support is found for the Monroe created aim.

In short the legislative context for both SS 1983 as well as the 1871 acts demonstrates the acts meant to dispose of unconstitutional state statutes, not to deprive the state courts from hearing cases they are adequately and willingly prepared to hear. The plaintiff, hereinafter Monroe, in Monroe brought a SS 1983 claim because Chicago police officers illegally entered his home without a warrant and subjected him and his family to a search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. At no time did Monroe contend that the police acted in accordance with a valid state law, that Illinois would not provide a forum in which Monroe could bring his claim of that Illinois was unwilling to uphold the unconstitutionality of the officers' actions. Therefore, under the law as it existed when Monroe filed the federal court should have deferred the case to the state court.

Although this deferment might appear to be parallel to the requirement of exhaustion, it is different in the aspect that it applies to not only equitable remedied but remedies at law as well. Under exhaustion the federal courts would dismiss based on its equitable discretion and not a lack of jurisdiction. Once the claimant had exhausted state remedies he could then, under certain circumstances bring a claim in Federal court. In a SS 1983 deferment the federal court would dismiss the claim based on a lack of jurisdiction. Instead Justice Douglas and his counterparts stepped into the shoes of the legislature and created an avenue by which a claimant in a SS 1983 action could bypass state courts. It is the job of the judiciary to say what the law is and not what it should be.

The Monroe decision has created a great strain on the federal courts. SS 1983 actions, which the states could handle, have flooded the federal dockets. Prior to Monroe the Federal Supplement listed three columns of citation to SS 1983. Since Monroe that number has grown to well over two hundred.

(Shepard's) Further, the Monroe decision has caused the courts to back track in an attempt to curtail the expansion they created. Cases that follow Monroe illustrate this counter expansion argument. In Allen vs. McCurry the Court held that a state criminal defendant would be es stopped from re litigating a SS 1983 claim that was validity heard in state court. In Mira vs. Warren County School Board The Court held that if a state law existed requiring a claimant to bring all claims arising out of the same act at once, a plaintiff could not bring a SS 1983 action in federal court if he could have previously brought it in his state court action. State prisoners have brought an enormous amount of SS 1983 claims for deprivation of rights. The number was so large an act was passed requiring prisoners to exhaust all administrative remedies available to them before bringing a claim.

Thus the federal court has had to attempt to clean up the mess they created when deciding Monroe. In conclusion, Justice Douglas and his majority in Monroe violated the principles of Federalism that is the federal court should give deference to the state court on issues which they are adequately prepared to handle and normally do. The Monroe decision further violated the separation of powers, rooted in The United States Constitution, by creating a fourth aim of SS 1983 never intended by its drafters.