Ryan Dreveskracht has published “The Benefits of Bringing a Federal Civil Rights Case,” in the Civil Rights edition of Trial News. An excerpt:
An action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal civil rights case. It requires proof of constitutional harm. That could mean discrimination that falls under the Fourteenth Amendment ‘s Equal Protection Clause; excessive force under the Fourth Amendment; failure to provide adequate healthcare while confined under the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendments; or the maintenance of unconstitutional policies, procedures, or customs that result in one of these, or other, constitutional harms. A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim will typically be immediately removed to federal court by the defendants. Federal court can be intimidating. The procedures are stricter, the rules are unforgiving, judges expect near-perfection, and the jury must be unanimous.
State law negligence claims, on the other hand, do not require proving a constitutional harm. They only require proof that the defendant acted unreasonably, as compared to how any private person would act. These claims are tangible. Jurors understand them. They don’t require a crash course in constitutional law. The rules in state court are looser, the judges are more lenient, and a unanimous jury is not required.
In this article, I argue that the benefits of bringing a federal civil rights case, where possible, outweigh the challenges. To do so, I provide two examples of simple state law medical negligence cases pled, instead, as civil rights cases and brought in federal court.
Ryan is a partner at Galanda Broadman. His practice focuses defending individuals’ constitutional rights and bringing police misconduct and wrongful death cases on local and national levels.
