Short answer: a police misconduct lawsuit in California often rests on three civil rights laws at once. 42 U.S.C. section 1983 is the federal statute for suing anyone who violates federal rights while acting "under color of" state or local law. The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, is a California statute aimed at interference with rights "by threat, intimidation, or coercion." The Ralph Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51.7, protects against violence or threats of violence because of who a person is or what they believe. Each covers different conduct and allows different remedies.
Why one case can involve several statutes
A single incident, such as an arrest without legal justification or force used during a stop, can violate federal law and California law at the same time. Each body of law has its own way to sue, so a complaint often lists several claims side by side, along with ordinary state claims such as battery or false imprisonment.
The California statutes say expressly that they stand on their own. An action under the Bane Act "is independent of any other action, remedy, or procedure that may be available," including one under the Ralph Act (Civil Code section 52.1(h)).
Section 1983: the federal claim
Section 1983 makes liable "[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State" subjects another person "to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." In police cases, the rights at issue are usually rights under the United States Constitution, and section 1983 is the main way to enforce them against state and local officers in a suit for damages.
For fees, 42 U.S.C. section 1988(b) provides that in a section 1983 case "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs."
Two limits shape most section 1983 cases:
- The employer is not automatically responsible. In Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the Supreme Court held that "a local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents." A city or county can be held responsible under section 1983 when "execution of a government's policy or custom" inflicts the injury.
- Qualified immunity. As the Supreme Court restated in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), this doctrine protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Officers sued for damages under section 1983 often raise it as a defense.
The Bane Act: threats, intimidation, or coercion
The Bane Act applies when a person, "whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion," with rights "secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state" (Civil Code section 52.1(b)). An individual whose rights were interfered with may sue "for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief" (section 52.1(c)).
What the Bane Act adds:
- California rights, too. It covers rights under the California Constitution and California law, not only federal rights.
- Fewer immunities for police. In the version in effect since January 1, 2022 (SB 2, Stats. 2021, ch. 409), section 52.1(n) provides that three Government Code immunities, in sections 821.6, 844.6, and 845.6, "shall not apply to any cause of action brought against any peace officer or custodial officer," or against the public entity that employs one, under the Bane Act.
- Attorney's fees. Section 52.1(i) provides that the court "may award the petitioner or plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees."
The Bane Act has limits of its own. Section 52.1(k) provides that "speech alone is not sufficient" to support a claim unless the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group and the other conditions in that subdivision are met.
Intent also matters. In Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 766, the Court of Appeal held that where an unlawful arrest is properly pleaded and proved, the Bane Act question is "whether the circumstances indicate the arresting officer had a specific intent to violate the arrestee's right to freedom from unreasonable seizure."
The Ralph Act: violence because of who someone is
Civil Code section 51.7(b)(1) gives all persons in California "the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics."
The characteristics in Civil Code section 51(b) are sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, and immigration status. Section 51.7(b)(1) adds that its identification of "particular bases of discrimination is illustrative rather than restrictive."
What the Ralph Act adds is a set of remedies written into the statute. Under Civil Code section 52(b), whoever denies the Ralph Act right, "or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial," is liable for actual damages and, in addition:
- exemplary (punitive) damages, in an amount set by the jury or the court;
- "a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)," awarded to the person whose right was denied; an action for that penalty "shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice"; and
- "attorney's fees as may be determined by the court."
Government Code section 818, which applies to government employers, separately provides that "a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant."
The Ralph Act requires violence or a threat of violence and a connection to one of the listed grounds. Like the Bane Act, it limits claims based on speech alone (section 51.7(e)). A person may also file a verified complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (Civil Code section 52(f)).
Who answers for an officer's conduct
A major difference between the federal and state claims is employer responsibility. Under section 1983, Monell requires a policy or custom before a city or county is liable. Under California law, Government Code section 815.2(a) makes a public entity "liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment" when the act would also support a claim against the employee. Subdivision (b) adds that, except as a statute provides otherwise, the entity is not liable where the employee is immune.
Put side by side:
- Section 1983: a federal right violated by someone acting under color of law; a city or county is liable only through a policy or custom; qualified immunity may apply.
- Bane Act: a federal or California right interfered with by threat, intimidation, or coercion; certain state immunities do not apply to claims against peace officers.
- Ralph Act: violence or a threat of violence because of a listed characteristic, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute; statutory penalty and fee provisions.
Claims and deadlines
Bane Act and Ralph Act claims arise under California law, so a damages suit against a city or county on those claims generally runs through the Government Claims Act first. Government Code section 945.4 provides that "no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity" on a claim that must be presented "until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board."
The federal and state claims also run on different clocks. See the guide to the six-month and two-year deadlines, how to file a government claim in Los Angeles, and what happens after a missed claim deadline.
Which of these laws fits a particular incident depends on its facts. Questions about a specific situation can be sent through the contact form.
Sources
- Civil Code section 52.1 (Tom Bane Civil Rights Act)
- Civil Code section 51.7 (Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976)
- Civil Code section 52 (remedies for Ralph Act violations; Civil Rights Department complaints)
- Civil Code section 51 (characteristics listed in subdivision (b))
- Government Code section 815.2 (public entity liability for employees' acts)
- Government Code section 818 (no punitive damages against a public entity)
- Government Code section 945.4 (no suit until a government claim is presented and acted on)
- 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights)
- 42 U.S.C. section 1988 (attorney's fees in civil rights actions)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (local government liability under section 1983)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity)
- Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 766 (specific intent under the Bane Act)