DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 1983 Outline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 1983 Outline United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Office of Staff Attorneys Section 1983 Outline Updated 2015 Office of Staff Attorneys United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit This outline is not intended to express the views or opinions of the Ninth Circuit, and it may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Originally written in 2002 by Kent Brintnall. Updated by the Office of Staff Attorneys. Many thanks to the staff attorneys and others who have reviewed sections of this outline, and have contributed valuable comments and corrections. Corrections and comments should be e-mailed to Jennifer Hendershot at [email protected]. Table of Contents I. GENERAL § 1983 PRINCIPLES ......................................................................1 A. Elements of a § 1983 Action ...........................................................................1 1. Person ............................................................................................................2 a. States ........................................................................................................2 b. Territories ................................................................................................. 2 c. Local Governmental Units .......................................................................2 (1) Status as Persons ................................................................................2 (2) Theory of Liability .............................................................................3 (a) Municipal Policy .....................................................................4 (b) Municipal Custom .................................................................. 5 (c) Municipality’s Failure to Train ............................................... 6 (d) Pleading Standard ...................................................................7 d. Agencies ...................................................................................................8 e. State Officials ...........................................................................................9 (1) Official Capacity ................................................................................9 (2) Personal Capacity.............................................................................10 (3) Determining Capacity ......................................................................10 f. Federal Officials .....................................................................................11 2. Acting under Color of State Law ................................................................11 a. General Principles ..................................................................................11 b. Applications ...........................................................................................12 i (1) State Employees ...............................................................................12 (2) Prison Officials ................................................................................12 (3) Prison Physicians .............................................................................13 (4) Public Defenders ..............................................................................13 (5) Private Parties ..................................................................................14 (6) Federal Employees ...........................................................................15 3. Deprivation of a Right .................................................................................15 a. Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution ..................................................15 b. Rights Guaranteed by Federal Statutes ..................................................15 c. Rights Guaranteed by State Law ...........................................................17 B. State-of-Mind Requirement ...........................................................................17 C. Causation .......................................................................................................17 1. General Principles .......................................................................................17 2. Supervisory Liability ...................................................................................18 3. Local Governmental Unit Liability .............................................................19 4. Relationship to Relief Sought .....................................................................19 5. Pleading Standards ......................................................................................19 D. Immunities .....................................................................................................20 1. Absolute Immunity .....................................................................................20 a. Basic Principles ......................................................................................20 (1) Determining Eligibility for Absolute Immunity ..............................20 (2) Burden of Proof Regarding Eligibility for Absolute Immunity ......21 ii (3) Effect of Absolute Immunity ...........................................................21 (4) Application to Bivens Actions .........................................................21 b. Judicial Immunity ..................................................................................21 (1) Basic Principles ................................................................................21 (2) Eligibility .........................................................................................22 (a) Judges ....................................................................................22 (b) Magistrate Judges .................................................................23 (c) Administrative Agency Hearing Officers .............................24 (d) Court Mediators ....................................................................24 (e) Court-Appointed Psychiatrists ..............................................24 (f) Court Employees ...................................................................24 (g) Parole Board Officials ..........................................................24 (h) Probation Officers / Parole Officers .....................................25 c. Prosecutorial Immunity ..........................................................................26 (1) Basic Principles ................................................................................26 (2) Eligibility .........................................................................................29 (a) Attorneys ...............................................................................29 (b) Agency Officials ...................................................................29 (c) Social Workers ......................................................................29 d. Presidential Immunity ............................................................................30 e. Legislative Immunity .............................................................................30 f. Witness Immunity ..................................................................................31 iii g. Ineligibility .............................................................................................31 (1) Local Governmental Units ...............................................................31 (2) Prison Officials ................................................................................31 (3) Defense Counsel ..............................................................................32 (4) Police Officers .................................................................................32 (5) Court Reporters ................................................................................32 (6) Executive Officials...........................................................................32 2. Qualified Immunity .....................................................................................33 a. Basic Principles ......................................................................................33 (1) Eligibility .........................................................................................33 (a) Identifying the Right .............................................................35 (b) Clearly Established Right .....................................................36 (2) Ineligibility .......................................................................................38 (a) Local Governmental Units ....................................................38 (b) Municipal Employees ...........................................................38 (c) Private Individuals ................................................................38 b. Pleading: Plaintiff’s Allegations ...........................................................39 c. Pleading: Affirmative Defense .............................................................39 d. Burdens of Proof ....................................................................................40 e. Discovery ...............................................................................................40 f. Dismissal ................................................................................................41 g. Summary Judgment ...............................................................................41 iv h. Interlocutory Appeals.............................................................................41
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Casenotes: Torts—Defamation—Judicial Immunity—Absolute
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 11 Article 7 Issue 2 Winter 1982 1982 Casenotes: Torts — Defamation — Judicial Immunity — Absolute Immunity Afforded Potential Witnesses for Statements Published in Unfiled Documents Prepared for Possible Use in a Pending Judicial Proceeding. Adams v. Peck, 288 Md. 1, 415 A.2d 292 (1980) Harold Douglas Norton University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Norton, Harold Douglas (1982) "Casenotes: Torts — Defamation — Judicial Immunity — Absolute Immunity Afforded Potential Witnesses for Statements Published in Unfiled Documents Prepared for Possible Use in a Pending Judicial Proceeding. Adams v. Peck, 288 Md. 1, 415 A.2d 292 (1980)," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 11: Iss. 2, Article 7. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol11/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TORTS - DEFAMATION - JUDICIAL IMMUNITY - ABSO- LUTE IMMUNITY AFFORDED POTENTIAL WITNESSES FOR STATEMENTS PUBLISHED IN UNFILED DOCUMENTS PRE- PARED FOR POSSIBLE USE IN A PENDING JUDICIAL PRO- CEEDING. Adams v. Peck, 288 Md. 1, 415 A.2d 292 (1980). I. INTRODUCTION In Adams v. Peck,' the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a party litigant may not maintain a defamation. action against a potential adverse witness based on that witness's unfiled written report to the opponent's attorney during the course of litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Immunity Is Extended for Lack of Specific Jurisdiction - Stump .V Sparkman
    DePaul Law Review Volume 27 Issue 4 Summer 1978: Symposium - Article 13 Employment Rights of the Handicapped A Judge Can Do No Wrong: Immunity Is Extended for Lack of Specific Jurisdiction - Stump .v Sparkman Stephen Craig Voris Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Stephen C. Voris, A Judge Can Do No Wrong: Immunity Is Extended for Lack of Specific Jurisdiction - Stump v. Sparkman, 27 DePaul L. Rev. 1219 (1978) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol27/iss4/13 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A JUDGE CAN DO NO WRONG: IMMUNITY IS EXTENDED FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION -STUMP V. SPARKMAN [T]he King himself is de jure to deliver justice to all his subjects; and for this, that he himself cannot do it to all persons, he dele- gates his power to his Judges,. and forasmuch as this concerns the honour and conscience of the King, there is great reason that the King himself shall take account of it, and no other. 1 Traditionally, the doctrine of judicial immunity has precluded indi- viduals from maintaining civil actions against judges for injuries re- sulting from a judicial proceeding. This tenet is thought to be in the best interest of society, in that it allows a judicial officer "to be free to act upon his own convictions without apprehension of personal con- sequences to himself." 2 In reversing the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, however, in Stump v.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?
    Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful? William Baude* The doctrine of qualified immunity operates as an unwritten defense to civil rights lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages for violations of their constitutional rights unless a government official violated “clearly established law,” which usually requires specific precedent on point. This Article argues that the qualified immunity doctrine is unlawful and inconsistent with conventional principles of statutory interpretation. Members of the Supreme Court have offered three different justifications for imposing this unwritten defense on the text of Section 1983. First, that the doctrine of qualified immunity derives from a common-law “good-faith” defense. Second, that it compensates for an earlier putative mistake in broadening the statute. Third, that it provides “fair warning” to government officials, akin to the rule of lenity. On closer examination, each of these justifications falls apart for a mix of historical, conceptual, and doctrinal reasons. There was no such defense; there was no such mistake; lenity ought not apply. Furthermore, even if these things were otherwise, the doctrine of qualified immunity would not be the best response. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38MG7FV8G Copyright © 2018 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. * Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law, University of
    [Show full text]
  • IMMUNITY: So You Think You Cannot Be Sued Huh?
    IMMUNITY: So you think you cannot be sued huh? Ryan Henry Law Offices of Ryan Henry, PLLC. 1380 Pantheon Way, St. 215 City of San Antonio 78232 Phone: 210‐257‐6357 [email protected] Absolute Judicial Prosecutor Legislative Statutory ??? Qualified Immunity Official Immunity Sovereign REASONS FOR IMMUNITY • Public service plug • Protect integrity of governmental systems • Protect government’s treasury • Protect public servants who are trying to do their job. Day in the life of Judge Nails Hard Working Judge Judicial Immunity • A Judge acting in his or her official judicial capacity enjoys absolute immunity from liability for judicial acts performed within the scope of their jurisdiction. • Judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from liability for judicial acts, no matter how erroneous the act or how evil the motive, unless the act is performed in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdictions.” In essence, as long as the judge acts 1) within his/her judicial capacity (not administrative capacity and 2) within his jurisdiction, the judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity. Meet Dewy Suem Appears before Judge Nails 1 – Judicial Function (1) whether the act complained of is one normally performed by a judge, (2) whether the act occurred in the courtroom or an appropriate adjunct such as the judgeʹs chambers, (3) whether the controversy centered around a case pending before the judge, and (4) whether the act arose out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Judges: Immunities: Judicial Act and Jurisdiction Broadly Defined. (Stump V
    Marquette Law Review Volume 62 Article 6 Issue 1 Fall 1978 Judges: Immunities: Judicial Act and Jurisdiction Broadly Defined. (Stump v. Sparkman) Ann Bowe Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Ann Bowe, Judges: Immunities: Judicial Act and Jurisdiction Broadly Defined. (Stump v. Sparkman), 62 Marq. L. Rev. 112 (1978). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol62/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62:112 language of Owen is ambiguous and will require further clarifi- cation, but as a general proposition the decision presents a three part analysis. First, it must be determined whether the federal and nonfederal claims comprise a single constitutional case. If the nonfederal claim does not arise from the "common nucleus of operative fact," then the inquiry will be at an end, since the claim is outside the constitutional limits of jurisdic- tion. Second, if the constitutional test is met, the relevant stat- ute must be examined to determine whether Congress has ne- gated the exercise of jurisdiction. Last, if a statutory negation is found, then the context in which the nonfederal claim is asserted must be examined to determine whether it should permit a circumvention of the negation. Exactly what type of context will be sufficient to permit circumvention is uncertain.
    [Show full text]
  • A Formalist Solution to the Expansion of Quasi-Judicial Immunity
    Emory Law Journal Volume 66 Issue 1 2016 The Officer Has No Robes: Aormalist F Solution to the Expansion of Quasi-Judicial Immunity Seena Forouzan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj Recommended Citation Seena Forouzan, The Officer Has No Robes: Aormalist F Solution to the Expansion of Quasi-Judicial Immunity, 66 Emory L. J. 123 (2016). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol66/iss1/3 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory Law Journal by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FOROUZAN GALLEYSPROOFS3 9/26/2016 8:49 AM THE OFFICER HAS NO ROBES: A FORMALIST SOLUTION TO THE EXPANSION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY ABSTRACT In 1871, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. Section 1 is now more commonly known as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the primary vehicle for constitutional tort litigation. Commonly interpreted against a background of tort principles, federal courts have imported—contrary to the plain language of the law— several immunities. This Comment focuses on one immunity in particular: absolute judicial immunity. Despite the “judicial” qualifier, absolute judicial immunity has been extended to a great deal of parties who are not judges. Commentators have decried this expansion and criticized lower federal courts for subverting civil- rights enforcement, exacerbating a pronounced rights-remedy gap, and departing from Supreme Court decisions that putatively cabin absolute judicial immunity. This Comment focuses on that last critique in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Immunity Makes Absolutely No Sense: an Argument for an Exception to Judicial Immunity.*
    ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE: AN ARGUMENT FOR AN EXCEPTION TO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY.* I. INTRODUCTION With utter disdain for the rule of law, defendants Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, in combination and conspiracy with other[s] . , have collectively perpetrated, through their acts and omissions, what ranks as one of the largest and most serious violations of children’s rights in the history of the American legal system. In choosing to treat children as commodities that could be traded for cash, the defendants have placed an indelible stain on the Luzerne County juvenile justice system.1 These were a few of the opening lines of a class action law suit filed by the Juvenile Law Center (JLC)—a public interest law group from Philadelphia—on behalf of dozens of children following the recent “Kids-for-Cash” scandal in Pennsylvania state court.2 That scandal and the legal measures that followed provide the factual background for this Comment. In January 2009, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of * Timothy M. Stengel, J.D., Temple University Beasley School of Law, 2012. I thank Professor Robert Reinstein for introducing me to, and guiding me through, the topic of judicial immunity, as well as for his immeasurable contributions to the Temple Law community. I also thank the staff and editors of Temple Law Review for their work in editing this Comment. Finally, I thank my entire family, especially my parents and my wife, Kristan, whose contributions here and elsewhere are proof that nothing in this world gets done alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Dennis V. Sparks, 449 US 24
    OCTOBER TERM, 1980 Syllabus 449 U. S. DENNIS v. SPARKS ET AL., DBA SIDNEY A. SPARKS, TRUSTEE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 79-1186. Argued October 8, 1980-Decided November 17, 1980 After a Texas state court's injunction against respondents' production of minerals from certain oil leases was dissolved by an appellate court as having been illegally issued, respondents filed suit in Federal District Court alleging a cause of action for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the judge who issued the injunction, the corporation that had obtained the injunction, its owner, and the sureties on the injunction bond (one of whom is the petitioner). Respondents claimed that the injunction had been corruptly issued as the result of a conspiracy between the judge and the other defendants, thus causing a depriva- tion of property without due process of law. The District Court dismissed the action, holding that the judge was immune from liability in a § 1983 suit because the injunction was a judicial act within the jurisdiction of the state court, and that with the dismissal of the judge the remaining defendants could not be said to have conspired "under color" of state law within the meaning of § 1983. The Court of Appeals agreed that the judge was immune from suit, but ultimately reversed as to the dismissal of the claims against the other defendants. Held: The action against the private parties accused of conspiring with the judge is not subject to dismissal. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in a challenged action, are acting "under color" of law for purposes of § 1983 actions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Qualified Immunity Doctrine in the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism and the Restriction of Constitutional Rights
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 1989 The Qualified Immunity Doctrine in the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism and the Restriction of Constitutional Rights David Rudovsky University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, Litigation Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Repository Citation Rudovsky, David, "The Qualified Immunity Doctrine in the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism and the Restriction of Constitutional Rights" (1989). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1507. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1507 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE IN THE SUPREME COURT: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND THE RESTRICTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DAVID RUDOVSKYt INTRODUCTION More than twenty-five years after its watershed decision in Monroe v. Pape,' the Supreme Court continues to struggle with the doctrinal, political, and institutional consequences of this resurrec- tion of the Civil Rights Act.2 In the immediate aftermath of Monroe, t Senior Fellow, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Partner, Kairys & Rudovsky. B.A. 1964, Queens College (CUNY); LL.B. 1967, New York University School of Law. I am indebted to Michael Avery. For the past fifteen years, as co- counsel in civil rights litigation and co-authors of Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation (1980), we have discussed, seemingly endlessly, the issue of qualified immunity.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Immunity Vs
    JUDICIAL IMMUNITY VS. DUE PROCESS: WHEN SHOULD A JUDGE BE SUBJECT TO SUIT? Robert Craig Waters Introduction In the American judicial system, few more serious threats to indi- vidual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge. Clothed with the power of the state and authorized to pass judgment on the most basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution. The injuries inflicted may be severe and enduring. Yet the recent expansion of a judge-made exception tothe landmark Civil Rights Act of 1871, chief vehicle for redress ofcivil rights violations, has rendered state judges immune from suit even for the most bizarre, corrupt, or abusive of judicial acts.’ In the last decade this “doctrine ofjudicial immunity” has led to adisturbing series of legal precedents that effectively deny citizens any redress for injuries, embarrassment, and unjust impris- onment caused by errantjudges. Consider the following examples. 2 • In 1978, the Supreme Court in Stump v. Sparkman held that the doctrine forbade a suit against an Indiana judge who had authorized the sterilization of a slightly retarded 15-year-old girl under the guise of an appendectomy. The judge had approved the operation without a hearing when the mother alleged that the girl was promiscuous. After her marriage two years later, the girl discovered she was sterile. Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall1987). Copyright © Cato Institute. All rights reserved. The author is Judicial Clerk to Justice Rosemary Barkett of the Florida Supreme Court. ‘The doctrine ofjudicial immunity from federal civil rights suits dates only from the 1967 Supreme Court decision in Pierson v.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District Of
    Case 1:15-cv-00339-RB-SCY Document 113 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO DR. WILLIAM M. TURNER, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:15-cv-00339 RB/SCY MIDDLE RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT; SUBASH SHAH, Former Executive Director of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) and former Chief Engineer and former Chairman of the New Mexico Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors; DENNIS DOMRZALSKI, Former MRGCD Public Information Officer; JOHN DOES, Members or Former Members of the MRGCD; MARY SMITH, New Mexico Assistant Attorney General; JOHN DOES, Members or Former Members of the New Mexico Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors; EDUARD YTUARTE, Former Executive Director, New Mexico Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors; JOHN T. ROMERO, Former Chair of the Engineering Committee, New Mexico Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors; and JOHN DOES, of KOB Channel 4 News of Albuquerque; and KOB-TV, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant Eduard Ytuarte’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 78.) Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Having considered the submissions of counsel and relevant law, the Court will GRANT this motion. I. Background On April 23, 2015 Plaintiff filed suit in this Court against the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (“MRGCD”), MRGCD employees, and members of the Board of Case 1:15-cv-00339-RB-SCY Document 113 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 12 Licensure for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors (“BOL”), including Defendant Ytuarte.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts—Judicial Immunity—Prospective Relief and Attorney's Fees Allowed
    University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 3 1985 Courts—Judicial Immunity—Prospective Relief and Attorney's Fees Allowed Robert S. Irving Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Robert S. Irving, Courts—Judicial Immunity—Prospective Relief and Attorney's Fees Allowed, 8 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 31 (1985). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol8/iss1/3 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review by an authorized editor of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES COURTS-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY-PROSPECTIVE RELIEF AND ATTORNEY'S FEES ALLOWED: Pulliam v. Allen, 104 S. Ct. 1970 (1984). On January 10, 1980, the police arrested Richmond Allen in Cul- pepper Co., Virginia for using abusive language. The offense was a mis- demeanor for which there was no jail sentence; the maximum penalty was a $500.00 fine.' Magistrate Pulliam set bail at $250.00 and when Allen was unable to meet it, she committed him to jail until his trial fourteen days later. Subsequent to his release and payment of the fine, Allen brought a section 1983 action against Magistrate Pulliam and Judge Burke, before who he had been tried, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The United
    [Show full text]