Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 21 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

780

CHAVEZ v. MARTINEZ

Scalia, J., concurring in part in judgment

be addressed on remand, along with the scope and merits of any such action that may be found open to him.

Justice Scalia, concurring in part in the judgment.

I agree with the Court's rejection of Martinez's Fifth Amendment claim, that is, his claim that Chavez violated his right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.1 See ante, at 766-767 (plurality opinion); ante, at 777-779 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment). And without a violation of the right protected by the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause (what the plurality and Justice Souter call the Fifth Amendment's "core"), Martinez's 42 U. S. C. § 1983 action is doomed. Section 1983 does not provide remedies for violations of judicially created prophylactic rules, such as the rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), as the Court today holds, see ante, at 772 (plurality opinion); post, at 789-790 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); nor is it concerned with "extensions" of constitutional provisions designed to safeguard actual constitutional rights, cf. ante, at 777-778 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment).2 Rather, a plaintiff seeking redress through § 1983 must establish the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. See Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U. S. 329, 340 (1997); Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U. S. 103, 106 (1989).

1 While occasionally referring to this as a "Fifth Amendment claim," a convention commonly followed, Justice Thomas and Justice Souter acknowledge that technically it is a Fourteenth Amendment claim, since it is only through the Fourteenth Amendment that the Fifth is "made applicable to the States," ante, at 766 (opinion of Thomas, J.), citing Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964).

2 Still less does § 1983 provide a remedy for actions inconsistent with the perceived "purpose" of a constitutional provision. Cf. Martinez v. Oxnard, 270 F. 3d 852, 857 (CA9 2001) ("[T]he Fifth Amendment's purpose is to prevent coercive interrogation practices that are destructive of human dignity" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Page:   Index   Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007