## Facts

- Wisconsin law required a plaintiff suing a state or local governmental entity or officer to give notice within 120 days stating the circumstances, amount of the claim, and intent to hold the defendant liable, then wait up to 120 days for allowance or disallowance, and file suit within six months after disallowance.
- Bobby Felder alleged Milwaukee police officers beat and falsely arrested him in a racially motivated, unconstitutional manner; the underlying disorderly conduct charge was later dropped.
- Felder filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in Wisconsin state court about nine months after the incident without complying with Wisconsin’s notice-of-claim statute.
- The trial court denied dismissal for noncompliance, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding the notice-of-claim statute applied and barred Felder’s § 1983 claim.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a state notice-of-claim statute may be applied to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed in state court.
2. Whether applying such a statute conflicts with § 1983’s remedial objectives and is preempted under the Supremacy Clause.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held Wisconsin’s notice-of-claim statute is preempted as applied to § 1983 actions in state court.
- The Court concluded the statute’s purpose and effects conflict with § 1983’s remedial scheme and would predictably lead to different outcomes depending on whether a § 1983 claim is filed in state or federal court.

## Legal Principles

- States may regulate procedure in their courts, but they may not impose conditions that burden or restrict the enforcement of federal rights.
- Under the Supremacy Clause, state rules that stand as an obstacle to Congress’s objectives must yield.
- A state notice-of-claim requirement that adds an extra prefiling hurdle, delays suit, or operates like a conditional limitation on filing conflicts with § 1983’s goals of providing a uniform, effective federal remedy.
- The absence of a federal notice-of-claim requirement for § 1983 claims is not a “gap” that warrants importing state notice provisions into § 1983 litigation.
- Notice-of-claim provisions that effectively require a claimant to present the claim to the government and await action before suing resemble an exhaustion requirement that Congress did not impose for § 1983 claims.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that a state may not apply a notice-of-claim statute to § 1983 suits in state court when the requirement interferes with § 1983’s remedial objectives and produces forum-dependent outcomes; the state rule is preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause.


Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)