1) What are the elements of bringing a 1983 action? Any supporting case(s) law for interpreting the elements?

2) Why would one bring this as opposed to a 14th Amendment violation? (e.g. DP, EP)

§ 1983 provides victims of a constitutional deprivation with a private right of action against a state actor (provided that various immunities do not apply). So, for example, if a cop violates your 4th Amendment rights, you can sue him for damages or injunctive relief. Your claim is a civil one and the remedy you get is money or appropriate equitable relief. The other thing about 1983 claims is that you can bring them in federal courts (as opposed to a common law tort claim you'd bring in state court).

In contrast, claims arising from the 14th Amendment aren't civil claims in the sense that the plaintiff isn't individually compensated. Rather, you sue the government under the 14th Amendment in order to invalidate a statute that is unconstitutional.

14A claims and § 1983 are related in that they both exist to protect against constitutional harms, but the mechanisms are distinct.

Additionally, §1983 is the general vehicle to bring Fourteenth Amendment claims. While Bivens claims allow for a constitutional right of action under certain narrow circumstances, generally, the constitution doesn't create an individual right of action. §1983 often provides authorization and standing for a suit so that an individual can sue, and assuming standing is proper, bring a facial challenge attacking the constitutionality of a statute.

thank you both for your help and insight on this, this clarifies a lot of things!

Edit: NVM