The Law Offices of Justin London is an advocate for civil rights protections. The Arizona firm protects individuals from civil rights violations, police misconduct including unlawful search and seizures, false arrests, false imprisonment, jail abuse, and other civil rights violations protected by the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments as well as Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Law Offices of Justin London is a well known Civil Rights Lawyer Chicago firm that provides legal services in civil rights cases with a focus on major projects: Civil Rights Lawyers for Civil Rights Violation, Civil Service Lawyer, Civil Court Lawyer, Civil Law Lawyers and Civil Lawyers. As a civil rights lawyer Chicago firm, we provide Civil Rights Lawyers for matters related to various Civil Rights Violations and Civil Rights Act . Our Civil Rights Lawyers have widespread information of civil rights violations and civil law.

Statutes of Limitations

Victims of police misconduct have one year in the state of Illinois to file state tort claims against government agents and municipalities under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. Thus, it is essential that if you have been a victim you seek civil law lawyers immediately due to the strict statutes of limitations which can time bar a claim.  Federal courts adjudicating civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 must borrow the state statute of limitations applicable to personal injury actions under the law of the forum state. In Illinois, most Section 1983 actions must be brought within two years from the date the action accrued.

Individuals have federal statutory rights.

Victims of police misconduct have substantive federal statutory civil rights which may give rise to police, government, and municipal liability under 42 U.S. §1983 (and other civil rights remedies). However, to bring a cause of action, the defendant must have acted under color of state law and the defendant’s conduct must have been the cause of the victim’s constitutional and civil right violations. We provide attorney unlawful conduct, attorney wrongful death, and civil rights lawyers. The civil service lawyers specialize in many laws that govern many provisions made for civil service matters. The Civil Lawyers of the Law Offices of Justin London can handle any type of civil lawsuit.

Did The Defendant Act Under Color Of State Law?

In order to recover under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the challenged conduct must be committed "under color of law." This means that the defendant must have acted in an official, government capacity, clothed with the authority of the state, in order to be held liable. Miga v. City of Holyoke, 398 Mass. 343 (1986). Since cities and towns derive their authority from the state, local government actors are deemed to act "under color of law" whenever they commit acts within their official capacity. A police officer acts "under color of law," even if he violates state or local law, provided he acted within the apparent scope of his authority and office. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961). Acts committed in pursuit of personal interests (private action) are not "under color of law." Cronin v. Town of Amesbury, 895 F. Supp. 375 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 81 F.3d 257 (1^st Cir. 1995); Bonsignore v. City of New York, 683 F.2d 635 (2d Cir. 1982). This is true, even if the police officer is on duty at the time he commits such acts. Delcambre v. Delcambre, 635 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1981). An Off-duty police officer who invokes the real or apparent authority of the police department, or who engages in activity prescribed generally for police officers, may be acting "under color of law." United States v. Tarpley, 945 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1960 (1992). A police officer on private detail acts "under color of law."

Was The Defendant's Conduct The Cause Of Claimant's Constitutional Or Statutory Deprivation?

1. In order to recover under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the claimant must prove that the defendant's conduct was not only the cause in fact of his injuries, but also the proximate cause of his constitutional or statutory loss. Cause in fact requires an actual, tangible connection between defendant's conduct and claimant's resultant harm. Proximate cause, which is more elusive, requires proof that claimant's loss was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.                                                                                                                                              
2. The issue of proximate cause plays a substantial role in claims brought against municipal employers. A municipal employer cannot be held vicariously liable for the civil rights violations of its employees. Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). It can, however, be held directly liable to a claimant whose civil rights were violated as a direct result of a policy, custom or practice adopted or followed by the municipal employer. Santiago v. Fenton, 891 F.2d 373 (1st Cir. 1989). A finding of municipal liability, however, requires proof of an "affirmative link" between the conduct of the municipality and the constitutional or statutory deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976).

Relief

1. Actual or Compensatory Damages

A victim unlawfully deprived of his or her civil rights is entitled to recover from the police officer responsible for such deprivation for the out-of-pocket expenses he or she sustained as a result of the defendant's conduct. This may include the victim's "specials"--her medical expenses, lost wages or lost earnings, and future loss of income--as well as her "general" damages--pain and suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, injury to reputation, etc. No damages may be awarded based on the abstract "value" or "importance" of the particular constitutional or statutory right infringed. Memphis Community Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986); Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978). In certain circumstances, however, when a plaintiff seeks compensation for an injury likely to have occurred but difficult to establish, some form of "presumed" damages may be appropriate. Nonetheless, such circumstances remain limited. Domegan v. Ponte, 972 F.2d 401, 417-18 (1st Cir. 1992).

2. Nominal Damages

When a plaintiff can establish that he was unlawfully deprived of a constitutional or federally-protected right as a result of a police officer's activities, but cannot prove actual harm, then he is entitled to an award of nominal damages ($1) from the jury.

3. Punitive Damages

Punitive damages may be awarded against a law enforcement official if he or she acted with "evil motive or intent," or with "reckless or callous indifference" to the claimant's civil rights. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983). A municipality, however, is immune from liability for punitive damages. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981).

4. Attorney's Fees

Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, the "prevailing party" in any action brought under Section 1983 may recover "a reasonable attorney's fee" as part of her costs. Moreover, this fee may include expert witness fees. The award of a reasonable attorney's fee is within the sound discretion of the trial court, although that discretion is not without limits. The prevailing party should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989). A defendant, as the "prevailing party," may only recover attorney's fees "upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even if not brought in subjective bad faith." Christianberg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 4012 (1978).