No, a judge cannot be sued. A case could possibly be brought against the state, but this is usually a situation where you appeal with these claims.
Other Contributor OpinionsThe grounds for suit against a presiding judge in which a party (parties) believe their Constitutional and/or civil rights have been violated are referred to as "declaratory relief" or "injunctive relief". Both matters are complicated and should be discussed with an attorney who is qualified in federal and/or state Constitutional law.
The comment above stating a judge cannot be sued is not exactly accurate. There are a narrow set of circumstances in which a judge can be sued. I'm not well versed in that area of law but I am aware of a local judge being sued for decisions he made from the bench and a negotiated settlement was reached. As I recall it had something to do with the judges ruling violated the person's civil rights.
No. Pro se civil rights violations do not exist. A judge can not be sued for anything he does while he sits on his bench. Pro se means a person is representing himself in a court of law. It is not a civil rights violation for you to represent yourself in a court of law.
Civil rights.
Yes. Law enforcement agencies are routinely sued in federal court for civil rights violations under Section 1983 of the U.S. Code.
If the history of the United States begins when the thirteen colonies became states under the US Constitution, then two major sets of activities concerning the USA would today be considered human rights violations. Using "major" as the criteria, and using USA as the place, of these violations, three main violations can be identified. 1. slavery 2. violations of treaties made with Native Americans and human rights violations made against Natives where no treaties were involved, and 3. Denying women the right to vote. In some counties women still are denied the right to vote.
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was created in 1963.
Human Rights violations
Uncovering past allegations of human rights violations committed by the former government under apartheid in South Africa (1948-1994).
Certainly not. It was more-or-less the beginning of the Establishment, with Parliament overseeing the Judiciary, and the Civil Service organising it.
Yes, they are absolutely a civil rights issue. All people should be treated equally under the law.
The main difference between a civil rights attorney and a human rights attorney is the scope of their work. Civil rights attorneys focus on protecting the rights of individuals under domestic law, while human rights attorneys focus on protecting the rights of individuals under international law. Civil rights attorneys typically work on cases involving discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or sexual orientation. Additionally, they may represent clients who have been violated by unreasonable search or who have been denied their due process rights. Civil rights lawyers can work in several places, such as commercial practice, government departments, and nongovernmental organizations. Human rights attorneys work on various cases involving human rights violations, such as torture, extrajudicial killings, and violations of freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. They may also work on cases involving the rights of refugees, and indigenous peoples. Human rights lawyers are often working abroad, such as with the United Nations or other international organizations.
yes it did. the blacsk got civil rights under Abe Lincoln
Uncovering past allegations of human rights violations committed by the former government under apartheid in South Africa (1948-1994).
Assaulted Civil Rights Under Fire - 2013 is rated/received certificates of: USA:PG-13