State of Mind Requirements in § 1983 Claims

One of the most confusing aspects of § 1983 litigation is that different claims require different levels of intent. You don’t need to prove the same thing for every type of constitutional violation. Getting this wrong means pleading the wrong standard — which can get your case dismissed even if the facts support it.

The Standards, From Easiest to Hardest

1. Objective Reasonableness (Fourth Amendment)

Applies to: Excessive force during arrest, false arrest, unreasonable search and seizure

What you must show: That the officer’s conduct was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.

What you don’t need to show: The officer’s actual intent, malice, or subjective state of mind. It doesn’t matter if the officer meant well — if the conduct was objectively unreasonable, it violates the Fourth Amendment.

This is the standard from Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), and it’s the most plaintiff-friendly standard. The court looks at the Graham factors: the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or fleeing.

Example: An officer tases a compliant person during a traffic stop. The officer claims they felt threatened. But objectively — based on what a reasonable officer would have perceived — there was no threat. The force was unreasonable regardless of the officer’s subjective fear.

2. Deliberate Indifference

Applies to: Eighth Amendment prison conditions, failure to provide medical care, failure to train (Monell), supervisory liability

What you must show: The defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and deliberately chose to disregard it. This has two parts:

• Objective: The risk must be serious enough that a reasonable person would recognize it.
• Subjective: The defendant must have actually been aware of the risk and consciously disregarded it.

This is harder than objective reasonableness because you need to show the defendant actually knew about the danger. Negligence — even gross negligence — isn’t enough.

Example: A jail nurse knows an inmate is having chest pains and showing signs of a heart attack, but doesn’t call for emergency medical care for six hours. The nurse was aware of the serious risk and deliberately ignored it. That’s deliberate indifference.

Not enough: A jail nurse misreads symptoms and makes an incorrect medical judgment. That’s negligence at most — not a constitutional violation.

3. Shocks the Conscience (Fourteenth Amendment Due Process)

Applies to: Substantive due process claims, high-speed police chases, abuse of government power outside the arrest context

What you must show: That the government’s conduct was so egregious, so outrageous, that it “shocks the conscience” of the court.

This is the hardest standard. The Supreme Court established it in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998). Most claims fail here because courts set the bar extremely high.

The standard shifts depending on the time the officer had to deliberate:

• Split-second decisions (like a high-speed chase): You must show the officer intended to harm without any legitimate law enforcement purpose. Basically, the officer was trying to hurt someone for no reason.
• Decisions with time to deliberate (like conditions of confinement or a prolonged investigation): Deliberate indifference may be enough.

Example that shocks the conscience: Officers hold a suspect down and take turns beating them after the suspect is handcuffed and compliant, while laughing.

Example that doesn’t meet the standard: An officer causes an accident during a high-speed chase while pursuing a dangerous suspect. Tragic, but not conscience-shocking.

4. Intentional Discrimination (Equal Protection)

Applies to: Selective enforcement, racial profiling, discriminatory prosecution

What you must show: That the defendant intentionally treated you differently because of your membership in a protected class (race, religion, national origin, etc.).

This requires proof of discriminatory intent, not just discriminatory impact. The fact that a policy disproportionately affects a racial group isn’t enough by itself — you need to show the policy was adopted because of that effect, not merely in spite of it.

5. Retaliatory Intent (First Amendment)

Applies to: First Amendment retaliation — arrest, prosecution, or other adverse action in response to protected speech or activity

What you must show: That your protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant’s decision to take adverse action against you.

The tricky part: if the officer had probable cause for the arrest, proving retaliation becomes much harder (though not impossible after Gonzalez v. Trevino).

Why This Matters

Plead the right standard. If you’re bringing an excessive force claim, cite Graham v. Connor and argue objective reasonableness. Don’t accidentally argue “deliberate indifference” for a Fourth Amendment claim — that’s the wrong standard and signals to the court that you don’t understand your own case.

Choose the strongest constitutional hook. Sometimes the same facts support claims under multiple amendments. Excessive force during an arrest is Fourth Amendment (objective reasonableness — easier to prove). Excessive force against a pretrial detainee is Fourteenth Amendment (and after Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), it’s also objective reasonableness). Excessive force against a convicted prisoner is Eighth Amendment (deliberate indifference or malicious intent — harder). Know which amendment applies to your situation.

Don’t use intent language when you don’t need it. If you’re bringing a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, you don’t need to prove the officer wanted to hurt you. Saying “Officer Smith intentionally used excessive force” adds an element you don’t actually have to prove. Just say the force was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.

Quick Reference