## Facts

- Clay L. Shaw filed a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Louisiana federal court seeking damages and injunctive relief against Willard E. Robertson and others for alleged constitutional violations.
- Shaw died before trial.
- Under Louisiana survivorship law, the claim would survive only for specified close relatives (spouse, children, parents, or siblings); none were alive at Shaw’s death.
- The district court substituted Shaw’s executor, Edward F. Wegmann, as plaintiff.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the § 1983 action abated under Louisiana law.
- Applying 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the district court concluded federal civil rights statutes lacked an express survival rule but declined to apply Louisiana’s limitation, instead creating a federal common-law survival rule allowing the executor to proceed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1988 requires federal courts to apply Louisiana survivorship law—causing a § 1983 claim to abate when the plaintiff dies without qualifying relatives—or permits a federal common-law survival rule for the decedent’s personal representative on the theory that state law is “inconsistent” with § 1983.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed.
- The Court held that, under § 1988, the district court should have applied Louisiana survivorship law, which caused Shaw’s § 1983 action to abate in these circumstances.
- The Court rejected a categorical federal rule of automatic survivorship for § 1983 actions.
- The Court reasoned that Louisiana’s rule was not shown to be inconsistent with § 1983’s compensation and deterrence purposes on these facts, including that there was no allegation the constitutional violation caused Shaw’s death.

## Legal Principles

- When federal civil rights law is deficient on a remedial point (such as survivorship), § 1988 directs federal courts to borrow state law unless the state rule is inconsistent with the Constitution and federal statutes.
- A state survivorship rule that causes abatement of a particular § 1983 claim is not, by that fact alone, inconsistent with § 1983.
- § 1983’s compensatory purpose does not necessarily require continuing damages litigation by an executor when there are no statutory survivors who would benefit.
- Limited abatement under state law does not necessarily defeat § 1983’s deterrent function, particularly where the alleged wrongdoing did not cause the plaintiff’s death and state law generally allows survival in most actions.
- Federal courts should not create a broad federal common-law survival rule for § 1983 claims absent a concrete conflict between the state rule and federal law.

## Conclusion

The Court required application of Louisiana survivorship law through § 1988 and allowed the § 1983 action to abate because the deceased plaintiff left no spouse, child, parent, or sibling, and the state rule was not inconsistent with § 1983 on the facts presented.


Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (1978)