Skip to main content
Law

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

20
  • All prosecutions are discretionary. No legal requirement for a prosecutor to actually decide to prosecute that specific case. 42 U.S.C. 1983 is meant to be used when a government agent deprives you of an actual right. Having them prosecute someone is not covered.
    – Viktor
    Commented Jan 16, 2016 at 17:12
  • 1
    @Viktor now see that's a very good observation. Let's run with that. How would one go about showing that there is no equal protection? (in the context of the hypothetical scenario of types of legal entity as opposed to groups of people)
    – SkyLeach
    Commented Jan 16, 2016 at 17:58
  • 1
    @SkyLeach Almost certainly not. Prosecutors can decline to prosecute for many reasons, including "the interests of justice would not be served." In fact, they have a duty to use their discretion to seek justice rather than seek convictions wherever possible.
    – cpast
    Commented Jan 17, 2016 at 8:23
  • 1
    @SkyLeach Your question is really too general -- you keep talking about "these circumstances," but it's unclear what exactly you mean. What law would you seek to have enforced? If you have a specific example in mind and we're guessing, it doesn't really work.
    – cpast
    Commented Jan 17, 2016 at 16:13
  • 1
    No. They have qualified immunity and no duty to prosecute. Just because you believe they have evidence doesn't meant that they have enough evidence to prosecute. If you had proof of bribery, you wouldn't bring suit; the government would under anti-racketeering laws. Section 1983 is reserved for when a gov't actor commits a criminal act under color of law, ie. they use their position to commit a crime against you personally. It is not enough to say you suffered a remote injury.
    – gracey209
    Commented Jan 17, 2016 at 20:04