37M CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA - FIGHT FOR YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS!

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
By NOT signing this petition you will loose all rights to compensation and choice of Forum.
Finally, by removing monetary damages from the compensation equation of § 1983, the state court has removed, from civil rights victims, the right to choice of forum. As noted above, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over § 1983 claims. Allen, 449 U.S. at 99. Concurrent jurisdiction, of course, affords litigants a valuable choice of forum to file their claim. But that choice is largely foregone if monetary damages are unavailable in one forum but not another.
We the undersigned submit this petition in regards to the California Appeals Court decision in the following case:
:No. 11-__

In the Supreme Court of the United States

___________

MIRACLE STAR WOMEN’S RECOVERING COMMUNITY, INC.,

 

Petitioner,

v.

KATHERINE JETT, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS,

Respondent.

___________

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

Court of Appeal of the State of California

for the Second Appellate District


We do not agree with the ruling in this case and are submitting this petition in protest and also as a request for this Honorable Court to hear this case.

This Court has repeatedly admonished that when state courts address federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they cannot change the remedial scheme that Congress has provided. Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386, 391 (1947). Part of the Section 1983 remedial scheme is compensatory damages, which includes an award of money. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 256 (1978). Despite the clarity of federal law in this area, the California Court of Appeals overturned a jury verdict awarding petitioner close to $400,000 in compensatory damages for the state’s infringement of petitioner’s federal right to due process. In doing so, the court below held that monetary damages are unavailable when state officials violate the federal rights of its citizens.

The state court’s rule is unique in several respects: it conflicts with the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; it is contrary to several of this Court’s decisions; it deprives millions of California citizens a state court forum to litigate abuses of their federal rights; it grants immunity to state officials where none exists; and it will drive Section 1983 claims to overburdened federal district courts.

The question presented is:

Whether a state court, addressing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, can prohibit an award of compensatory money damages without violating the Supremacy Clause.

 Conflict is not the right word, but it is the first one that comes to mind.

The California Court of Appeal’s decision is in significant conflict with the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several of this Court’s decisions. If the decision was not so far reaching, it could be tolerable; unfortunately, it affects the federal rights of millions. If the decision stands, other states will also immunize state officials from monetary damages when those officials abuse the federal rights of their citizens, and the deterrent for violating federal rights that monetary damages provide will vanish. If that is not bad enough, the lower court decision threatens to inundate overburdened federal district courts with § 1983 suits—because why would anyone file a § 1983 action in state court if those courts have taken monetary damages off the table. For these reasons, the Court’s review is warranted.

I. THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION PROHIBITING COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION IS AN AFFRONT TO FEDERAL LAW AND THIS COURT’S DECISIONS, AND CONTRAVENES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

 Finally, by removing monetary damages from the compensation equation of § 1983, the state court has removed, from civil rights victims, the right to choice of forum. As noted above, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over § 1983 claims. Allen, 449 U.S. at 99. Concurrent jurisdiction, of course, affords litigants a valuable choice of forum to file their claim. But that choice is largely foregone if monetary damages are unavailable in one forum but not another.

There is no tension between the state court rule here and this Court’s decisions; that rope has been broken. Only this Court can tie the pieces back together by placing civil rights victims in the same position they would occupy without the state’s conflicting rule.

  

Thank you for taking the time to read our letter,
Sincerely,
Voice Of The People   www.facebook.com/letmespeakforyou
Sign Petition
Sign Petition
You have JavaScript disabled. Without it, our site might not function properly.

Privacy Policy

By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.

Having problems signing this? Let us know.