Cases We FundConstitutional Claims

Pre-settlement funding for civil rights plaintiffs.

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related statutes. Police misconduct, excessive force, unlawful arrest, and First and Fourth Amendment violations.

Overview

Civil rights litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. Cases typically involve law enforcement misconduct: excessive force, unlawful search and seizure, unlawful arrest, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and First Amendment retaliation. Government defendants often assert qualified immunity, which extends litigation timelines. Pre-settlement funding is particularly valuable in civil rights cases given the combination of lengthy litigation and the inability of many plaintiffs to work during or after the incident.

What We Fund
Police use of excessive force, including officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths
Unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution
Illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment
First Amendment retaliation by government actors
How It Works
01
Apply
Submit case information including the nature of the constitutional violation and the government defendant.
02
Evaluation
Key factors: nature of the violation, injury severity, jurisdiction's history with § 1983 awards, and qualified immunity posture.
03
Decision
Civil rights cases require careful analysis of qualified immunity risk and expected timeline. Decisions within 24–72 hours.
04
Funding
Wire transfer within one business day of approval.
What Makes a Qualifying Case

Not every claim is a fit for funding. The factors below are the ones our underwriting team weighs most heavily when evaluating this case type. Meeting them does not guarantee approval, but it indicates a claim well-suited for a pre-settlement advance.

A constitutional violation by a state actor under § 1983 (or a federal actor via Bivens), such as excessive force or unlawful arrest
A clearly established right where the qualified-immunity defense is weak
Documented injury or harm resulting from the violation
Retained counsel experienced in civil rights litigation
Our Underwriting Approach

Civil rights underwriting gives significant weight to qualified-immunity exposure, which is the principal litigation risk in § 1983 cases. We assess whether the constitutional right was clearly established and how strong the immunity defense is, alongside the severity of the harm and the jurisdiction's history with civil rights awards. Cases with clear violations and weak immunity defenses are stronger funding candidates; the extended timelines typical of these matters are priced in.

Typical Timeline

Civil rights cases often take 24 to 48 months given qualified-immunity motion practice and the interlocutory appeals it can generate.

What You'll Need
01
Filed § 1983 or Bivens claim with retained counsel
02
Documented harm from the constitutional violation
03
A clearly established right with manageable immunity exposure
Common Questions

Case-specific questions about this type of claim.

Full FAQ →
Does qualified immunity affect fundability?
Qualified immunity is a real litigation risk that is factored into underwriting. Cases where the constitutional violation is clearly established and the immunity defense is weak are better candidates for funding than cases with significant immunity exposure. Your attorney's assessment of immunity risk is a key underwriting input.
Can I get funding if my case is against a federal actor?
Yes, through Bivens claims or specific federal statutes. Federal cases proceed differently from § 1983 claims. Contact us with your specific case and we will assess fundability.
Ready to apply?
Applications take less than five minutes. Decisions within 24 hours in most cases.
Apply for Funding