Is the summary judgment analysis the same for a state civil rights lawsuit?

No. While it is sometimes equally tricky to correctly analyze "official function" or "official immunity," discretionary acts versus ministerial acts, arguments, with state law civil rights analysis you do not have the absurd result suggested by the federal analysis, i.e., that a wrong might be found to have been committed without a remedy. While it is sometimes equally tricky to correctly analyze "official function" or "official immunity," discretionary acts versus ministerial acts, arguments, with state law civil rights analysis you do not have the absurd result suggested by the federal analysis, i.e., that a wrong might be found to have been committed without a remedy.

This is because there is no such issue when suing under the GTCA and there is no technical requirement that a ministerial obligation be "clearly established," when suing a local governmental individual. However, the same principle applies, e.g., if you cannot defeat the state immunity defenses at summary judgment, the case dissolves into ether.

How does summary judgment issues affect my right to sue?

Because of how civil rights cases are decided, particularly in federal cases, it is common to lose cases at summary judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Attorneys have to be very cautious about taking on civil rights cases.

Generally speaking, Plaintiff’s Attorneys look for cases where the law appears to be clear that liability exists AND there are catastrophic, or near-catastrophic, injuries.

For this reason, other than where a non-profit organization, like the American Civil Liberties Union or Southern Poverty Law Center, is willing to take on the case, only a plaintiff with monetary resources can afford an attorney to sue over an "insult" injury, like school prayer cases.