Skip to main content

Search

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.6.3 Pendent Jurisdiction

When a plaintiff files a federal claim against a defendant, under what circumstances may it add to the complaint a state law claim over which there is no independent basis of federal jurisdiction? The doctrine of pendent jurisdiction formerly governed the exercise by federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over claims that lack an independent basis of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s decision in United Mine Workers v.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.6.5 Ancillary Jurisdiction

The related doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction developed to empower a federal court to hear some counterclaims and third-party claims over which it lacked an independent jurisdictional basis.274 In a case in which a plaintiff filed a federal claim against a defendant, under what circumstances may the defendant bring claims against the plaintiff or others over which there is no independent basis of federal subject-matter jurisdiction? Such claims are brought by defending parties which have not chosen the federal forum.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.6.7 Tactical Considerations—Whether or Not to Raise Supplemental Claims

A threshold question for advocates is whether to join federal and transactionally related state law claims in federal or state court. In Rhoten v. Dickson, the Kansas Supreme Court suggested caution before reflexively filing in federal court.318 In Rhoten, the plaintiff joined federal and related state law claims in federal court. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the federal claim and the court dismissed the remaining state law claims pursuant to Section 1367(c).

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.7.7 Civil Rights Removal—28 U.S.C.§ 1443(1)

Advocates should be aware of an infrequently litigated statute concerning removal of civil rights cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) allows removal of “civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court” and which are brought “[a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof.”396

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.8.3 Doctrinal Foundations

The Supreme Court limited the ability of federal courts to enjoin or otherwise to interfere with state judicial proceedings in Younger v. Harris and subsequent decisions. In Younger, plaintiffs sought a federal injunction against a state criminal prosecution on the ground that the state statute alleged to have been violated was unconstitutionally vague. The Court held that such an injunction could be granted only in extraordinary circumstances to prevent immediate irreparable injury.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.3.2 No Governmental “Respondeat Superior” Liability

Local governments are not liable for injuries inflicted solely by employees or agents unless it is the execution of the government’s policy or custom that inflicts the injury, triggering liability.4224 Monell clearly rejected respondeat superior liability for local governments, reasoning that “the touchstone of the § 1983 action against a government body is an allegation that official policy is responsible for a deprivation of rights[.]”4225 It further held that a governmen

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.3.3 Liability for Acts of Final Policymakers

Even a single decision made by the “final policy making authority,” such as the governing body of a local government or one having the power to decide finally on its behalf, can constitute a “policy” under § 1983.4232 However, “the scope of § 1983 liability does not permit such liability to be imposed merely on evidence of the wrongful actions of a single city employee not authorized to make city policy.”4233 Therefore, it is critical to identify who is a final policy maker for purposes of i

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.3.5 Municipal Liability for Employees Sued in Official Capacities

A local government official sued in their official capacity is a “person” suable under § 1983, where “a local government would be suable in its own name.”4263 An official capacity suit “is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity.”4264 Official-capacity suits “‘generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.’”4265 It is no lo

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.3.7 Punitive Damages

Governmental defendants are immune from a claim of punitive damages for the bad faith actions of their employees.4287 Punitive damages are available in a § 1983 action against an individual defendant “when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.”4288 However, because the government — already potentially liable for awards of actual damages – should not be punish

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 9.1.1 Compensatory Damages

Compensatory damages "are intended to redress the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant's wrongful conduct."4315 In the case of a § 1983 claim, the harm must have been caused by a denial of the client’s constitutional rights though nominal damages can be recovered for such a denial absent proof of actual injury.4316 A plaintiff may be compensated for intangible, psychological injuries as well as for financial, property, or physical harms proximately caused