Immigration status and a police abuse case
A person without immigration status has the same claim against a police officer as a citizen. The statute says so, and the Supreme Court has said so since 1982. What changes is the arithmetic around the claim: an arrest or a conviction can affect an immigration case, a federal immigration officer is not reached by Section 1983 at all, and the record a civil case creates has to be handled with the immigration case in view. This page goes through each, and says what this site does not publish.
Current as of September 2026. We re-check this page every quarter and after any change in the law.
The fear that keeps people without status from calling a lawyer after a beating or a false arrest is that the lawsuit will expose them. The answer has two parts. First, the right to sue does not depend on status, and that has been settled law for more than forty years. Second, the exposure question is real, it is about the record the case creates and not about the right to bring it, and it is managed the way every other risk in the case is managed: by lawyers who handle the police case and the immigration case together. This page states the first part with the authority for it, and explains how the second part is handled, without publishing immigration law that belongs on our other sites.
The statute says "other person," and the Supreme Court has said what that means
Section 1983 makes liable every person who, under color of state law, subjects "any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof" to the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws (42 U.S.C. § 1983). The words were chosen in 1871 and they mean what they say: a citizen, or any other person within the jurisdiction. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court held that undocumented persons are persons within the jurisdiction: "Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a 'person.'" The claim exists for a person with no status, a person whose status has lapsed, a person in proceedings, and a person who has never had contact with the immigration system, in exactly the same form.
Everything that follows from the claim is the same too. The damages are the same: the damages page goes through compensatory, nominal and punitive damages, and a prevailing party may be awarded a reasonable attorney's fee (42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)). The defenses are the same; the qualified immunity page goes through the one that matters most. The deadlines are the same: the New York notice of claim within 90 days (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a)), the three-year federal period in New York (Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989); N.Y. CPLR 214(5)), the New Jersey Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8) and two-year period (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2), the Florida pre-suit notice within three years (Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)) and four-year period (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)). The New Jersey Civil Rights Act likewise gives its claim to "any person" deprived of protected rights by a person acting under color of law (N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c)). The deadlines page has every clock.
Where the abuse was accompanied by violence or intimidation because of actual or perceived national origin or ancestry, New York Civil Rights Law § 79-n gives a separate civil action for injunctive relief and damages, with attorney's fees in the court's discretion. The Attorney General may enforce it with a civil penalty of up to $5,000, a penalty payable to the State rather than damages to you.
What this site does not publish
This site covers the claim against the officer. It does not publish immigration law: not what a particular arrest or conviction means for a particular status, not what happens in removal proceedings, not how bond works. Those questions have their own sites in this firm, linked below, and their own verified ledgers. Where this page says that an arrest or a conviction can affect immigration status, that is the whole of what it says; the how and the how much are answered there, or by us on the phone.
State and local officers, or federal ones: two different roads
Section 1983 reaches a person acting "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State" (42 U.S.C. § 1983). An NYPD officer, a county sheriff's deputy, a state trooper, a corrections officer at Rikers or a county jail: each is acting under color of state law. An ICE agent, a Border Patrol agent, a deputy marshal or an FBI agent is not. Which officers were involved is the first question in every case where immigration is in the picture, because the answer changes the statute, the defendant, the notice and the clock.
| NYPD, county, state officers | ICE, CBP and other federal officers | |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officer; state law against the employer | No Section 1983 claim. A Bivens claim only where one still lies; a Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States |
| Who is sued | The officer personally; the municipality under state law or through Monell | The United States under the FTCA; the individual agent only under Bivens, where available |
| Pre-suit step | New York: notice of claim within 90 days for the state-law claims; none for the federal claim (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)) | Written administrative claim to the agency within 2 years of accrual; suit within 6 months after the final denial is mailed (28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)); no suit until the agency denies or six months pass (§ 2675(a)) |
| Intentional torts | Assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution under state law, with the notice of claim | Allowed against the United States for "investigative or law enforcement officers": assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, malicious prosecution (28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)) |
The Bivens route, a damages claim against a federal officer personally for a constitutional violation, has been narrowed to nearly nothing for police-type claims. In Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), the Supreme Court held that there is no Bivens remedy for Fourth Amendment excessive force by a Border Patrol agent or for First Amendment retaliation, and described extending Bivens as "a disfavored judicial activity." Where a Bivens claim still lies, it generally borrows the forum state's personal injury limitation period. The route that remains is the FTCA claim against the United States, and its two-year administrative clock is the one to protect. The ICE and federal officers page goes through it, and the deadline tool counts it.
Two things follow for a person in immigration custody. The damages claim for what an officer did is one matter; getting out of custody is another, and it is not on this site. That is what our sibling site icebail.com is for, and it is linked below.
What an arrest can do to an immigration case
An arrest or a conviction can affect immigration status. That is the whole of what this site publishes on the point, and it is enough to set the rule for how the case is run: the criminal charge that came out of the police encounter is handled with the immigration consequences in view, the plea decision most of all. The criminal case and civil case page explains how a plea can close a civil claim; for a noncitizen the same plea has a second cost, and the two are weighed together, before the plea, with the immigration lawyer in the room.
If a criminal charge from the incident is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before describing the arrest to anyone, in writing or otherwise. The criminal case and civil case page explains why, and for a noncitizen the reason is doubled.
ICE detention, bond hearings and federal habeas. For anyone still in immigration custody, and the site where a claim against federal immigration officers usually begins.
Go to icebail.com →
immigrationtrial.comDeportation defense in immigration court. Where an arrest has led to removal proceedings, that case is handled there.
Go to immigrationtrial.com →
myimmigrationplea.comWhat a criminal plea does to immigration status, before you take it. The plea offered to end the criminal case is evaluated there and here at the same time.
Go to myimmigrationplea.com →
Privacy: what this site records, and what it does not
This site is built so that a person with an open criminal charge, or no immigration status, can use it without creating a record anywhere. The deadline tool runs in your browser and stores nothing, sends nothing, and has no analytics on its page; the copy button writes to your clipboard and nothing else. The intake form takes a date, an agency and a kind of incident. It does not ask for a narrative of what happened, it does not ask you to name officers, and it does not ask about immigration status. The story is told by phone, in English, Russian or Spanish in-house or through a live interpreter, and with your defense lawyer involved where a charge is open. The privacy page states the rest.
The civil case itself does create a record: a notice of claim, a 50-h examination if the City demands one, a complaint, a deposition. Each is prepared for, and what is said in each is decided beforehand by the lawyers on both cases. Whether and how immigration status can be asked about in a civil case is a question this site does not publish an answer to; it is handled before any testimony is given, not during it. The discovery page explains what each side gets and how testimony is prepared.
A claim against a police officer is a claim about what the officer did. It does not require you to be anyone other than a person within the jurisdiction, which you are. What it requires is the record, the dates, and a decision made early enough to protect the shortest clock. The first week page is where to start.
ICE and federal officers
Section 1983 stops at the state line. The FTCA claim, the two-year clock, and what is left of Bivens.
Federal officers →The first week
What to write down, what to request, what not to say, and who to call.
What to do after →The two cases
Why a plea can close a claim, what a dismissal starts, and how the notice of claim runs regardless.
Criminal case and civil case →Common questions
I am undocumented. Can I sue a police officer who hurt me?
Yes. Section 1983 protects any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof, and in Plyler v. Doe the Supreme Court held that an undocumented person is a person within the jurisdiction: whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a person. The claim, the damages and the attorney's fee provision are the same. The New York notice of claim, the New Jersey Tort Claims Act notice and the Florida pre-suit notice apply the same way.
The officers who arrested me were ICE. Is that the same claim?
No. Section 1983 reaches people acting under color of state law, and federal officers are not. A damages claim against federal officers for a constitutional violation, a Bivens claim, has been narrowed sharply: in Egbert v. Boule the Supreme Court refused to recognize one for excessive force by a Border Patrol agent or for First Amendment retaliation. The route that remains is a tort claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, presented to the agency in writing within two years. The ICE and federal officers page goes through it.
Will suing affect my immigration case?
An arrest or a conviction can affect immigration status; a lawsuit against the officer is a different thing from the arrest. This site does not publish immigration law. What we do is handle the civil case with the immigration case in view, together with whoever is handling that case, and our sibling sites cover the immigration side: icebail.com for detention and bond, immigrationtrial.com for removal proceedings, myimmigrationplea.com for what a plea does to status.
What happens to what I type into your intake form?
The form takes a date, an agency and a kind of incident. It does not ask for a narrative, and it does not ask about immigration status. The deadline tool stores nothing, sends nothing and runs entirely in your browser. The story is told by phone, with your defense lawyer involved if a charge is open, and it is not written down by you anywhere on this site.
Tell us what happened.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which claims the facts support, which deadline runs first for the agency involved, what evidence to preserve this week, and whether a pending criminal case changes the timing. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510If a criminal charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, including us. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language. Contingency fee, confirmed in writing before we begin.