Find a Supreme Court case that deals with Section 1983 violations Essay

Find a Supreme Court case that deals with Section 1983 violations. Research the case in some depth - Essay Example It provides a remedy for deprivation of rights, such that the plaintiff has to prove personal involvement of the defendant, the defendant’s nature and quality of available immunity and the factors that will influence the alleged wrong. Defenses for federal, local and state government are qualified immunity in Section 1983 lawsuits. Additionally, prosecutors, judges and security officers have absolute immunity in Section 1983 lawsuits. Bivens claims that there has to be personal liability acting under the â€Å"Color of Law†. This implies that the person has to be subjected to the cause and must prove that they were deprived of their rights (Lippman 473). A Supreme Court case regarding civil remedies is Darling v. State of Florida; which took place in the Supreme Court of Florida. This case involved an inmate (Darling) challenging the use of lethal injections administered in accordance with sections 27.702 and 945.10, under the Florida Statues (2007). Additionally, the inmate wanted the court to overlook the mentioned sections and mentioned that Capital Collateral Regional Counsel Attorneys could not legally aid capital perpetrators like himself in challenging the execution method under Section 1983. The ruling rejected Darling’s claims but agreed with the claim regarding legal aid; by that permitting attorneys to file section 1983 for their capital defendant clients only of they are challenging the execution method. Clearly this case offered Capital Collateral Regional Counsel Attorneys representing capital defendants’ immunity as per section 1983. True to Bivens’ words, Darling had to prove he was deprived of h is civil rights. This he did by claiming that lethal injection method of execution is an unconstitutional and cruel punishment. This case opened the door for the capital defendant immunity as per section 1983; thereby gaining defense from post-conviction motions. In the light of the supreme law, the Appellee (state of Florida) acted within