Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Felder v. Casey

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawSection 1983PreemptionSupremacy ClauseState court procedure42 U.S.C. § 1983preemption

Facts

After Milwaukee police stopped and arrested petitioner, he alleged that officers beat him and that department members later conspired to cover up the misconduct. Nine months later, he sued the city and officers in Wisconsin state court under § 1983 and sought attorney's fees under § 1988. Defendants moved to dismiss because petitioner had not complied with Wisconsin's notice-of-claim statute, which required notice within 120 days, an itemized claim for relief, a 120-day waiting period before suit, and suit within six months after disallowance. Wisconsin courts ultimately held the statute applicable to his federal civil rights claims.

Issue

May a State apply its notice-of-claim statute, including a short notice deadline and mandatory waiting period, to § 1983 actions brought in state court? More specifically, are those requirements pre-empted because they conflict with the purposes and operation of § 1983?

Rule

When state courts entertain a federally created cause of action, the federal right cannot be defeated by local practice. A state law is pre-empted in § 1983 litigation if it stands as an obstacle to Congress's purposes by burdening, conditioning, discriminating against, or imposing exhaustion requirements on the federal civil rights remedy, especially where it predictably produces different outcomes depending on whether the § 1983 claim is filed in state or federal court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Nina Torres alleges that city police officers used excessive force during a traffic stop. Eleven months later, she files a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in Ohio state court against the city and the officers, but she never filed the written municipal notice required within 90 days for suits against local governments and their employees acting in official capacities.

Should the Ohio court dismiss Nina's § 1983 claim for failure to comply with the state notice statute?

Explanation. The majority held that when a state court entertains a § 1983 action, the federal right cannot be burdened by a state notice-of-claim rule that functions as a condition precedent to recovery, is aimed at governmental defendants, and is absent from federal-court § 1983 practice. Such a rule conflicts with § 1983’s compensatory purposes and is preempted under the Supremacy Clause.