Felder v. Casey
487 U.S. 131 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state notice-of-claim statute, which requires a plaintiff to provide notice to a governmental entity before filing a lawsuit, is preempted by federal law when applied to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action brought in state court.
Facts:
- On July 4, 1981, Milwaukee police officers stopped Bobby Felder for questioning.
- The interaction became hostile, attracting the attention of Felder's family and neighbors.
- During his arrest for disorderly conduct, officers allegedly beat Felder with batons, dragged him, and threw him into a paddy wagon, all in public view.
- Three days later, a local city alderman wrote to the chief of police requesting a full investigation into the incident.
- The police department took no disciplinary action against the officers involved.
- The city attorney later dropped the disorderly conduct charge against Felder.
Procedural Posture:
- Bobby Felder sued the City of Milwaukee and its police officers in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court (a state trial court) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the federal claims based on Felder's failure to comply with Wisconsin's statutory notice-of-claim requirement.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the trial court's ruling.
- The defendants, as appellants, then appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court (the state's highest court), which reversed the lower courts and held that the notice-of-claim statute did apply.
- Felder, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a state notice-of-claim statute, which requires a plaintiff to notify a governmental entity of a claim before suing, preempted by federal law when applied to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought in state court?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. The state notice-of-claim statute is preempted because it stands as an obstacle to accomplishing the full purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reasoned that the statute conflicts with the remedial objectives of § 1983 in several ways. First, its purpose is to minimize governmental liability, which is contrary to § 1983's goal of providing broad compensation for civil rights violations. Second, it imposes an exhaustion of remedies requirement by forcing a claimant to submit their claim to the government first, which contradicts the Supreme Court's holding in Patsy v. Board of Regents that exhaustion is not required for § 1983 claims. Finally, applying the statute in state court but not federal court creates an outcome-determinative difference based solely on the choice of forum, which undermines the uniform application of federal law and violates the Supremacy Clause.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
No. The state notice-of-claim statute is not preempted and should apply in state court. The dissent argued that a state statute is not inconsistent with federal law merely because it may cause a plaintiff to lose. States have the right to establish their own rules of procedure for their courts. The notice-of-claim statute serves legitimate state interests, such as allowing for prompt investigation and potential settlement. Furthermore, the statute does not discriminate against a federal right, as it applies to all claims against municipal defendants, whether based on state or federal law. A plaintiff who voluntarily chooses a state forum must accept its procedural rules.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes. The state notice-of-claim statute is preempted, but the reasoning should focus on its function as a statute of limitations. The concurrence viewed the 120-day notice period as an impermissibly short statute of limitations. Under Wilson v. Garcia, § 1983 claims must borrow the state's longer personal injury statute of limitations to ensure uniformity and prevent discrimination against federal rights. By drastically shortening the time to act, the Wisconsin statute undermines the federal policies established in Wilson and is therefore preempted by the Supremacy Clause.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes that state procedural laws cannot unduly burden the enforcement of federal substantive rights, even within the state's own court system. Under the Supremacy Clause, any state rule that creates a significant obstacle to the remedial purpose of a federal law like § 1983 is preempted. The decision prevents states from creating special procedural hurdles for civil rights plaintiffs who sue government entities, thereby ensuring that the choice between state and federal court does not determine the outcome of a federal claim. It reinforces the principle that federal rights must be treated uniformly within a state, regardless of the forum chosen by the plaintiff.
Unlock the full brief for Felder v. Casey