Source: https://steeringlaw.com/civil-rights-attorney/suing-police-officers-in-federal-court-for-violating-your-constitutional-rights/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:35:29+00:00

Document:
THE KEYS TO THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IS SOMETHING CALLED “FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION“.
The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”, including and especially former slaves who had been “freed” with the ratification of the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) by the states on December 6, 1865.
Thereafter, in response to a letter to Congress from President Ulysses S. Grant complaining of the conditions in the Southern states, on April 20, 1871 Congress enacted the the statute that we sue police officers under to this very day; The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871; 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Also known as the “Third Enforcement Act”, Congress enacted Section 1983 to enforce the 14th Amendment; at that time to provide black persons of African descent with a civil remedy for damages in federal court against “the Sheriff” and his posse, who were ”acting under the color of state law” when they violated their victims’ federal constitutional rights (i.e. murdering black people in the South and otherwise terrorizing them. This is the very same law that we sue police officers under to this very day.
THE RESURRECTION OF SECTION 1983.
In 1961 in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) the Supreme Court finally held that the The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, now 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is obligatory on the states, and that a person whose federal constitutional rights were violated by someone acting under the color of state law can sue for damages under that statute.
In order to give person’s whose constitutional rights a real opportunity to obtain redress for violation of those rights, in 1976 Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1988, to provides that a trial court may award a prevailing civil rights plaintiff attorney’s fees as costs. This was necessary to vindicate smaller but not less important constitutional violations by public officers and officials. Without the award of attorney’s fees most civil rights cases would not be brought. Lawyers are not going to litigate these cases for free, and they are not going to put hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney’s hours into a case with no chance for any real pay out to them. It is just not going to happen.
TWO BITES AT THE APPLE; YOUNGER ABSTENTION DOCTRINE.
In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) the Supreme Court held that federal courts may only enjoin state court criminal proceedings under very limited circumstances. Moreover, Younger has been abused and expanded to the point where is the police beat you, falsely arrest you and procure your bogus criminal prosecution, that if you try to sue them that the federal courts will generally “abstain” from proceeded with the federal lawsuit is there is an issue of federal constitutional law that should be decided in the state court criminal proceeding. See, Abstention—Discretion to Decline Jurisdiction, Federal Practice Manuel for Legal Aid Attorneys, Shriver Center for Law and Poverty. See also, Doctrine of Younger v. Harris: Deference in Search of a Rationale, Cornell Law Review, Volume 63, Issue 3, March 1978.
IF YOU’RE THE VICTIM; YOU’RE THE ENEMY; SUING THE POLICE WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR THE SAME INCIDENT IN WHICH YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.
Then, the D.A.’s office jumps in the fray, and attempts to get you to plead to any crime; a plea that will almost assuredly preclude you from obtaining redress for the wrongs perpetrated upon you. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld release – dismissal agreements; an agreement where the D.A.’s offices promises to drop the bogus criminal case against you and let you out of jail, in exchange for a promise not to sue. Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386 (1987.) Creepy, huh? Extortion? Sounds like it. MacDonald v. Musick, 425 F. 2d 373 (9th Cir. 1970) (conditioning dismissal of criminal DUI charge in exchange of promise not to sue police is felonious extortion under California law.) But so long the government is the extorting party, no crime, since no one is going to prosecute a Deputy District Attorney for making such a dismissal offer.
SUING THE POLICE WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR THE SAME INCIDENT IN WHICH YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.

References: v. 
 § 1983
 § 1988
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.