What a Federal Civil-Rights Petition Looks Like

An annotated, educational example of a § 1983 complaint for unconstitutional social-media blocking

When a resident sues an official in federal court, the case starts with a document: a complaint (sometimes called a petition) filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. Below is an annotated example of what such a complaint looks like in a social-media blocking case built on Lindke v. Freed. Every party and fact is a placeholder — the yellow-highlighted brackets — and the blue boxes explain what each part does. This is an educational illustration of the form, not a document ready to file, and not legal advice. A real complaint would be drafted by a licensed attorney on the actual facts.

Read this first

This example exists so residents can understand how the pieces they’re preserving — screenshots, dates, the questions that got them blocked — map onto what a court would actually need. If you believe you have a case, take your documentation to a licensed civil-rights attorney. Fee-shifting under § 1988 (explained on The Legality) is why such attorneys will often evaluate these cases at no cost.

The Example, Annotated

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE [WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI]

[RESIDENT NAME],
Plaintiff,

v. Case No. [____]

[OFFICIAL NAME], in his individual and official capacities as [OFFICE, e.g., County Treasurer of ___ County, Missouri],
Defendant.

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

The caption

Names the court, the parties, and the capacity in which the official is sued. “Individual capacity” targets the official personally; “official capacity” is effectively a claim against the office. Blocking cases commonly plead both. Missouri’s Platte County sits in the Western District of Missouri.

I. Introduction

1. This is a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant, an elected official of [COUNTY], maintains a social-media page that he uses to communicate with the public about the business and conduct of his office. Plaintiff, a resident and constituent, posted comments critical of Defendant’s official conduct on that page. In response, Defendant blocked Plaintiff, excluding Plaintiff from a forum for public discussion of county business, on the basis of Plaintiff’s viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment.

The introduction

A short plain-English statement of what happened and why it’s illegal. Note the three load-bearing ideas: the page is used for official business; the plaintiff was a critic; the block was viewpoint-based. The rest of the complaint exists to support those three sentences with facts.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.

Jurisdiction & venue

Boilerplate, but mandatory: it tells the federal court why it (rather than a state court, or a different district) can hear the case.

III. Parties

4. Plaintiff [NAME] is a resident of [COUNTY], Missouri, and a constituent of Defendant.

5. Defendant [NAME] is the elected [OFFICE] of [COUNTY], Missouri. At all relevant times, Defendant acted under color of state law.

“Under color of state law”

The phrase that connects the official’s conduct to § 1983 — and the element Lindke v. Freed now governs on social media. The facts section must show the official (1) had actual authority to speak for the government on the matters posted, and (2) purported to exercise it on the page.

IV. Factual Allegations

6. Defendant maintains a page on Facebook titled [PAGE NAME].

7. Defendant uses the page to communicate with constituents regarding the business of his office, including [EXAMPLES: official announcements, explanations of official actions, responses to constituent questions about the office].

8. As [OFFICE], Defendant possesses actual authority to speak on behalf of [COUNTY] concerning the matters described in paragraph 7.

9. On or about [DATE], Plaintiff posted comments on the page criticizing Defendant’s conduct of his office, including [DESCRIBE THE COMMENTS].

10. On or about [DATE], Defendant blocked Plaintiff from the page. The block prevents Plaintiff from viewing, commenting on, or otherwise engaging with the page’s content, including Defendant’s statements regarding official business.

11. Defendant has permitted comments expressing support for his conduct to remain on the page while blocking Plaintiff and other users who expressed criticism.

12. On or about [DATE], Defendant published a post acknowledging that he had blocked users from the page. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit [A].

The facts — where screenshots live

Every numbered allegation should be provable with a document. This is why preserving screenshots matters: the page’s official-business posts (¶7), your comment (¶9), the block state (¶10), the surviving supportive comments (¶11), and any post where the official admits blocking (¶12) each become an exhibit. Paragraph 11 is what turns a “moderation” defense into a viewpoint-discrimination record.

V. Count I — Violation of the First Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

13. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs.

14. The interactive spaces of Defendant’s page constitute a forum for speech in which Defendant, acting under color of state law, may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.

15. By blocking Plaintiff because of the viewpoint of Plaintiff’s speech, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

16. Defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law, including Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024).

The cause of action

The legal claim itself. Paragraph 16 is aimed at qualified immunity — the defense officials raise when sued personally. The clearer the law, the weaker that defense; citing Lindke says: the rules were published before you acted.

VI. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

a. Declare that Defendant’s blocking of Plaintiff violated the First Amendment;

b. Enjoin Defendant to unblock Plaintiff and to refrain from viewpoint-based blocking of constituents;

c. Award Plaintiff nominal and compensatory damages as appropriate;

d. Award Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

e. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just.

Dated: [DATE] Respectfully submitted,
[ATTORNEY NAME, BAR NO., FIRM, CONTACT]
Counsel for Plaintiff

The prayer for relief

What the plaintiff asks the court to do. Item (d) — attorney’s fees under § 1988 — is the economics of the whole case: a prevailing plaintiff’s legal bill is paid by the losing official’s side, which is why a case seeking $1 in nominal damages is still worth an attorney’s time.

From Example to Reality

Everything a real complaint needs from a resident is exactly what this site asks residents to preserve: the page name, the dates, what you posted, the block itself, and what was allowed to remain. If that’s your situation, submit your documentation here and take it to a licensed attorney — the Legality page explains why these cases get taken.

This page is an educational illustration of the general form of a federal civil-rights complaint. It is not a legal document, not a template for self-filing, and not legal advice; its authors are not lawyers. All parties and facts shown are placeholders, and nothing here asserts that any particular official has violated any law or that any particular resident has a viable claim — those determinations belong to licensed counsel and, ultimately, a court.