Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.
457 U.S. 496 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing an action in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Congressional intent, as evidenced by the legislative history of § 1983 and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, dictates that plaintiffs have immediate access to a federal forum for constitutional claims.
Facts:
- Georgia Patsy was an employee of Florida International University (FIU), a state institution.
- Patsy alleged that she was well-qualified for her work and consistently received excellent performance evaluations from her supervisors.
- Despite her qualifications, Patsy was rejected for more than 13 different positions for which she applied at FIU.
- Patsy claimed that FIU denied her these employment opportunities solely on the basis of her race and sex.
Procedural Posture:
- Georgia Patsy filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Florida Board of Regents in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- The District Court granted the Board of Regents' motion to dismiss because Patsy had not exhausted available state administrative remedies.
- Patsy, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- A panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision.
- The full Court of Appeals granted a petition for rehearing en banc, which vacated the panel's decision.
- The en banc Court of Appeals held that § 1983 plaintiffs must exhaust adequate and appropriate administrative remedies and remanded the case to the District Court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the en banc Court of Appeals.
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 plaintiff required to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing an action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No, a plaintiff is not required to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing an action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Based on long-standing precedent and congressional intent, exhaustion should not be judicially imposed. The Court's reasoning is threefold. First, for nearly two decades since McNeese v. Board of Education, the Court has consistently held that exhaustion is not a prerequisite for a § 1983 action. Second, the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the precursor to § 1983, shows that Congress intended to provide a federal forum to protect individuals from unconstitutional state action, mistrusting state processes to adequately safeguard federal rights. The federal remedy was designed to be supplementary and immediately available. Third, Congress's recent enactment of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (§ 1997e), which created a specific, limited exhaustion requirement only for adult prisoners, demonstrates that Congress understood the general rule to be no-exhaustion and deliberately carved out a narrow exception, thereby implicitly affirming the general rule for all other § 1983 cases. Policy arguments favoring an exhaustion requirement are matters for legislative, not judicial, determination.
Concurrence - Justice O'Connor
No, a plaintiff is not required to exhaust state administrative remedies. Although sound policy considerations, such as reducing the caseload of federal courts, suggest that an exhaustion requirement would be beneficial, the Court's prior rulings have clearly established that one is not required. While reluctantly concurring with the judgment, the opinion expresses hope that Congress might reconsider the issue and enact legislation creating a broader exhaustion requirement for § 1983 cases.
Concurrence - Justice White
No, a plaintiff is not required to exhaust state administrative remedies. The Court's numerous and unequivocal precedents on this issue are binding under the principle of stare decisis, and the legislative history of § 1983 supports this conclusion. However, the majority's reliance on the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (§ 1997e) is unnecessary and unwise, as that legislation was narrowly focused on institutionalized persons and does not reflect a broader congressional endorsement of the no-exhaustion rule. Exhaustion is generally a judicially crafted rule of administration, but in this statutory context, precedent forecloses its application.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
Yes, a plaintiff should be required to exhaust adequate and appropriate state administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 action. The dissent first argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment and should dismiss the case. On the merits of the exhaustion question, the dissent agrees with the Fifth Circuit's flexible exhaustion rule, contending it promotes comity, allows states to correct their own violations, and conserves scarce judicial resources strained by the massive increase in § 1983 litigation. The dissent argues that the Court's precedents are not a categorical bar to exhaustion and that the majority misinterprets the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, which addressed the specific problem of prisoner lawsuits and did not endorse a general no-exhaustion rule for all other cases.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a clear and categorical rule that plaintiffs in § 1983 cases have immediate access to a federal forum without first pursuing state administrative remedies. By grounding its holding in statutory interpretation and legislative intent, the Court placed the responsibility for creating any exhaustion requirements squarely on Congress. This ensures that the federal remedy for constitutional violations remains distinct and accessible, fulfilling the original purpose of the 1871 Civil Rights Act. The ruling prevents states from using administrative procedures to delay or deter civil rights litigation but also affirms a framework that contributes to the high volume of such cases in federal courts.
Unlock the full brief for Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.