COX, Circuit Judge:

No language in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides for the survival of a civil rights action in favor of another upon the death of the injured party. Because the statute is silent or "deficient" in this respect, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) requires application of state survivorship law, provided that law is "not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." Under the Alabama survivorship statute, Ala.Code § 6-5-462, unfiled personal injury claims do not survive the death of the injured party. Finding this statute "inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States," the district court declined to apply it in this case, and instead fashioned a federal common law rule of survivorship. The case was tried to a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the decedent's estate. Because we conclude that Ala.Code § 6-5-462 is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, we reverse.

I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

One evening in April 2007, two City of Prattville, Alabama police officers—Brian Gentry and Camille Emmanuel—stopped Eugene Gilliam's vehicle for violating the speed limit. During the course of the stop, the officers found marijuana in Gilliam's pocket and attempted to arrest him. In the process, both officers tasered Gilliam multiple times. At trial, the facts about the amount of resistance the police officers encountered in trying to subdue Gilliam were disputed. Gilliam's estate presented evidence that Gilliam did not struggle or resist at all. The officers testified that he forcibly resisted arrest and attempted to flee.

After the officers restrained Gilliam by using tasers, he complained of chest pains and breathing difficulties. The paramedics, who were called almost immediately, arrived within minutes and took Gilliam to the hospital. About seven hours later, Gilliam died. The state medical examiner performed an autopsy and listed "hypertensive cardiovascular disease consistent with dysrhythmia" as the final pathological diagnosis. He listed the cause of death as "hypertensive cardiovascular disease" and the manner of death as "natural." Using blood drawn from Gilliam an hour or so after the incident, a toxicology screen flagged his blood as positive for marijuana and cocaine.

About a year after Gilliam's death, Cynthia Waldroup, Gilliam's mother and personal representative of his estate, sued officers Gentry and Emmanuel.1 The Estate alleged: (1) state law wrongful death claims against both officers; (2) § 1983 excessive force claims against both officers that specifically alleged death resulted from the use of force; and (3) § 1983 excessive force claims against both officers that did not allege death was the result of the use of force.

The two officers filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion in limine. Through both of these motions, the officers generally challenged the Estate's evidence as to whether the officers' firing of the taser was the proximate cause of Gilliam's death. Through their motion in limine, the officers sought to exclude the death causation testimony and reports of the Estate's two medical experts.

The district court granted the motion in limine, and excluded the death causation testimony and reports of the Estate's expert witnesses. Because the Estate had no other expert medical testimony to establish causation, the district court granted the officers' motion for summary judgment on the state law wrongful death claims and the § 1983 excessive force claims that alleged death resulted from the use of force. The court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 excessive force claims that did not allege death was the result of the use of force.

The case went to trial against both officer Gentry and officer Emmanuel on the non-death § 1983 excessive force claims. At the close of the Estate's case and again at the close of the officers' case, counsel for the officers moved to dismiss the excessive force claims. They argued that Gilliam died prior to the filing of this lawsuit and thus the § 1983 excessive force claims had abated under Alabama law as provided by Ala.Code § 6-5-462.2 The district court denied both motions, concluding that Alabama survivorship law should not be applied to this case because it would be "inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States."3 The case was then presented to the jury.

The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of officer Gentry, but returned a verdict against officer Emmanuel in the amount of $30,000. The district court entered final judgment against Emmanuel. She now appeals that judgment, arguing that the district court erred in denying her pre-verdict motions because the § 1983 excessive force claims did not under Alabama law survive Gilliam's death.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 705 (11th Cir.2010); Dalrymple v. Reno, 334 F.3d 991, 994 (11th Cir.2003).

III. DISCUSSION

The issue in this case is whether a § 1983 excessive force claim survives in Alabama if the injured party dies before the lawsuit is filed, or abates pursuant to Ala.Code § 6-5-462. We stress at the outset that this case, in its present procedural posture, does not involve a claim that the officers' unconstitutional conduct caused the decedent's death. The state law wrongful death claims under Ala.Code § 6-5-410, and the § 1983 excessive force claims alleging that death was the result of the use of force, were both dismissed at the summary judgment stage because the Estate produced no admissible evidence that the officers' use of force caused the decedent's death.4 Therefore, the only issue we address is whether a § 1983 excessive force claim that did not result in the decedent's death survives in Alabama or abates under Ala.Code § 6-5-462.

By its terms, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide for the survival of civil rights actions. Due to this "deficiency" in the statute, the survivorship of civil rights actions is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a). Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 588-89, 98 S.Ct. 1991, 1994, 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978). That statute generally directs that, where federal law is "deficient," the state law of the forum applies as long as it is "not inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States." 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a).5

The Supreme Court has interpreted § 1988(a) as requiring a "three-step process" to determine the rules of decision applicable to civil rights claims. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 267, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1942, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985) (superseded by statute on other grounds); Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 47-48, 104 S.Ct. 2924, 2928, 82 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984); Moore v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 267 F.3d 1209, 1214 (11th Cir.2001). Courts must first look to federal law "so far as such laws are suitable to carry [the civil and criminal civil rights statutes] into effect." 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a). Second, if federal law is "not adapted to the object" or is "deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses," courts must apply the law of the forum state. Id. Third, if application of state law is "inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States," courts must not apply state law. Id.

There is no dispute in this case regarding the first two steps of the analysis: The parties agree, as do we, that the failure of § 1983 to include a survivorship provision is not "suitable to carry [that statute] into effect" and is "deficient" in providing suitable remedies for civil rights violations. Indeed, the Supreme Court has definitively held that § 1983 is deficient in not providing for survivorship. See Robertson, 436 U.S. at 588, 98 S.Ct. at 1994; see also Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 407-08 (5th Cir.1961) (holding that § 1983 is deficient in not providing for survivorship and looking to Georgia's survivorship and wrongful death statutes to see if civil rights claim survives).6 The dispute in this case concerns the third step: whether application of Alabama survivorship law is "inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

The applicable Alabama survivorship law is Ala.Code § 6-5-462. Under that provision, "a deceased's unfiled tort claims do not survive the death of the putative plaintiff." Bassie v. Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs. of Northwest Ala., P.C., 828 So.2d 280, 282 (Ala.2002); see also Cont'l Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Fields, 926 So.2d 1033, 1037 (Ala.2005) ("As a general rule, causes of action in tort do not survive in favor of the personal representative of the deceased."); Malcolm v. King, 686 So.2d 231, 236 (Ala. 1996) ("The general rule is that under Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-462, an unfiled tort claim does not survive the death of the person with the claim.").7 It is clear that if this Alabama survivorship statute applies, then Gilliam's § 1983 excessive force claim against Emmanuel cannot survive his death.

The Estate contends that Ala. Code § 6-5-462 is inconsistent with federal civil rights laws and thus the district court was correct in refusing to apply it and instead fashioning a federal common law rule of survival. Our analysis of whether the Alabama survivorship statute applies in this § 1983 action is guided by the Supreme Court's decision in Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 98 S.Ct. 1991, 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978).8 In Robertson, the Supreme Court held that a Louisiana statute permitting malicious prosecution actions to survive only in favor of certain surviving family members is not "inconsistent" with federal civil rights law within the meaning of § 1988(a). See id. at 590-94, 98 S.Ct. at 1995-97. To determine whether state law is inconsistent with federal law within the meaning of § 1988(a), the Supreme Court teaches that courts must look to the text of the federal statutes and Constitutional provisions at issue as well as the policies expressed in them. Id. at 590, 98 S.Ct. at 1995. Two important policies underlying § 1983 include "compensation of persons injured by deprivation of federal rights and prevention of abuses of power by those acting under color of state law." Id. at 590-91, 98 S.Ct. at 1995. Applying this framework, the Court found that the Louisiana statute did not conflict with the text of § 1983 or its underlying policies, even though application of the state statute abated the cause of action. It said:

Id. at 593, 98 S.Ct. at 1996-97.

Using the analytical approach established in Robertson, we conclude that Ala.Code § 6-5-462 is not inconsistent with federal law and therefore must apply in this case. The Estate does not contend that the Alabama survivorship statute is inconsistent with the text of § 1983. Nor could it. As the Supreme Court has recognized, there is "nothing in [§ 1983] to indicate that a state law causing abatement of a particular action should invariably be ignored in favor of absolute survivorship." Id. at 590, 98 S.Ct. at 1995. In fact, by its own terms, § 1983 grants the cause of action "to the party injured," suggesting that the action is personal to the injured party. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, Alabama survivorship law is not "inconsistent" with the text of § 1983 itself.

Nor is Alabama survivorship law inconsistent with the policies underlying § 1983—the "compensation of persons injured by deprivation of federal rights and prevention of abuses of power by those acting under color of state law." Robertson, 436 U.S. at 591, 98 S.Ct. at 1995. To determine whether the Alabama survivorship statute is inconsistent with federal law, we must ask whether that statute, along with other Alabama statutes, generally serves the purposes of § 1983. In the vast majority of cases, applying Alabama law through § 1988(a) will compensate the constitutionally injured and impose liability on those state officials who violate the Constitution. First, when an injured party actually files a § 1983 action and later dies, that action will survive death. See Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. v. White, 582 So.2d 487, 491 (Ala.1991) (noting that filed tort claims pending in court at time of injured party's death survive under § 6-5-462 while unfiled claims do not). So, when a § 1983 claim is actually filed prior to the victim's death, Alabama law provides compensation for the constitutional violation and imposes liability on the state official responsible for the unconstitutional conduct—a result consistent with the purposes of § 1983. Second, when a constitutional violation actually causes the injured party's death, a § 1983 claim can be asserted through the Alabama wrongful death statute, Ala.Code § 6-5-410.9 So, when a constitutional violation actually causes death, Alabama law provides compensation for the constitutional violation and imposes liability on the state official responsible for the death—a result consistent with the purposes of § 1983.10 Considering the relationship between the Alabama survivorship statute and the available remedies under Alabama law, we see no significant impairment of the compensatory and deterrent purposes of the federal civil rights laws.11

We recognize that the facts of this case are unusual. Gilliam, who died seven hours after the use of force, could not file a § 1983 claim that would have survived under Ala.Code § 6-5-462. At the same time, Gilliam's estate could not assert a § 1983 claim through the wrongful death statute, Ala.Code § 6-5-410, because it could not produce admissible evidence that the use of force caused Gilliam's death. This case is, therefore, an unusual one, where application of Alabama law does not provide for survivorship. But, just because applying Alabama law causes the Estate to lose in this unusual case does not mean Alabama law is generally inconsistent with federal law. See Robertson, 436 U.S. at 593, 98 S.Ct. at 1996 ("A state statute cannot be considered `inconsistent' with federal law merely because the statute causes the plaintiff to lose the litigation."). And, with no inconsistency between Alabama law and federal law, we cannot, as the dissent proposes, craft a highly specific federal common law rule of survivorship that applies to the unique facts of this case.12 Under that analysis, almost every § 1983 claim would survive, even though § 1988(a) clearly instructs us to refer to an Alabama statute that does not provide for the survivorship of unfiled tort claims. Because the Alabama survivorship statute is not inconsistent with federal law, we must apply the statute as written to the facts of this case.

The Estate argues that Alabama law is generally inhospitable to § 1983 claims because it does not provide for the survival of any unfiled tort actions. The Estate points out that the Alabama survivorship statute is more restrictive on survivorship than the Louisiana statute in Robertson, which provided for the survival of most tort claims and simply limited the individuals who could maintain the survival action. Robertson, 436 U.S. at 591, 98 S.Ct. at 1995. Therefore, the Alabama survivorship statute, according to the Estate, is inconsistent with § 1983 because it "significantly restrict[s] the types of actions that survive." Id. at 594, 98 S.Ct. at 1997.

We are not persuaded. Robertson requires that, in applying § 1988(a), the survivorship law of the forum state applies as long as it is not "inconsistent" with federal law. As the Eighth Circuit has recognized, "Robertson does not require courts to compare the laws of one state with those of another state, or to ask whether someone could benefit from survival of the action, or to use some as yet undefined measure to determine whether a state rule on the survival of actions is overly restrictive." Parkerson v. Carrouth, 782 F.2d 1449, 1454 (8th Cir.1986). To be sure, application of state law under § 1988(a) does not turn on the reasonableness of that particular state law.13 Our only inquiry is whether Alabama law, which mandates the nonsurvival of unfiled tort claims, is inconsistent with § 1983. Under that inquiry, we find no inconsistency. There is no indication that Ala.Code § 6-5-462 was intended to target § 1983 plaintiffs, or to reduce the deterrent effect of § 1983. The Alabama survivorship statute applies to all plaintiffs and all manner of torts, not simply those involved in a federal civil rights action. The statute simply applies the same survivorship rule to § 1983 plaintiffs that apply to any other tort plaintiff in Alabama. Therefore, we cannot agree that Alabama law is generally inhospitable to the survival of § 1983 actions.

We recognize that application of Alabama's survivorship law does not lead to uniform application of federal civil rights laws. For instance, had the events in this case occurred in Georgia instead of Alabama, Gilliam's § 1983 claim would have survived his death. See O.C.G.A. § 9-2-41 (providing for survival of decedent's cause of action). But this is the natural result under § 1988(a), which references state law and mandates that it will often apply in § 1983 litigation. As the Supreme Court has recognized, "[1988(a)'s] reliance on state law obviously means that there will not be nationwide uniformity[.]" Robertson, 436 U.S. at 593 n. 11, 98 S.Ct. at 1997 n. 11. Had Congress intended § 1983 lawsuits to survive a decedent's death no matter where the decedent was injured, it could have explicitly written this language into the law.14 Congress has not done so. Instead, we are left to interpret § 1988(a) and apply state law as long as it is not inconsistent with federal law. Because there is no inconsistency between Ala.Code § 6-5-462 and federal law, that statute must apply in this case.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in denying Emmanuel's motions to dismiss based on the abatement of Gilliams's excessive force claims. When § 6-5-462 is applied to this action, which was not filed prior to the death of Eugene Gilliam, the excessive force claim against Emmanuel abates under Alabama law. The judgment entered against Camille Emmanuel is reversed.

REVERSED.

MARTIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the Majority's opinion because I cannot agree that there is "no inconsistency between Ala. Code § 6-5-462 and federal law." To the contrary, I would conclude that the Alabama survivorship statute, to the extent that it permits the abatement of tort actions for wrongful conduct that immediately contributes to a person's death, is inconsistent with both the abuse prevention and compensation goals underlying and embodied in 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

At about 5:15 p.m. on April 9, 2007, Eugene Gilliam ("Mr. Gilliam") was pulled over for driving ten miles over the speed limit and not wearing a seat belt. A little over seven hours later, at 12:26 a.m. on April 10, 2007, he was dead at the age of twenty-two.1 In this § 1983 action, Mr. Gilliam's Estate ("the Estate") claimed that Officer Camille Emmanuel ("Officer Emmanuel") used excessive force against Mr. Gilliam in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A federal jury sitting in the Middle District of Alabama agreed. In rejecting the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the Estate's evidence,2 the District Court explained "that even though the tasing event was not the proximate cause of the death of Eugene Gilliam, ... the evidence supports the inference that it was at least a contributing factor into his death." When the defendants renewed the motion at the close of the evidence, the District Court clarified "that the application of that provision of Alabama Code which ... would terminate Mr. Gilliam's rights on his death seven hours after an incident if a wrongful death claim were not pursued would be contrary to the constitution and laws of the United States." I agree with the District Judge, and therefore write in dissent.

I begin by observing that this case falls beyond the scope of the "narrow" holding of Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 594, 98 S.Ct. 1991, 1997, 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978). In Robertson, the § 1983 plaintiff died four years after the filing of his § 1983 action alleging prosecutorial abuse. 436 U.S. at 585-86, 98 S.Ct. at 1992-93. In that case, "it [was] agreed that [the plaintiff's] death was not caused by the deprivation of rights for which he sued under § 1983." Id. at 594, 98 S.Ct. at 1997. As such, the Supreme Court was careful in Robertson to "intimate no view... about whether abatement based on state law could be allowed in a situation in which deprivation of federal rights caused death." Id.; see also Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 24, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 1474, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (distinguishing Robertson, in part, because in Robertson "the plaintiff's death was not caused by the acts of the defendants upon which the suit was based"). Although Robertson was silent on the issue, the former Fifth Circuit concluded earlier that § 1983 embodied "a clear congressional policy to protect the life of the living from the hazard of death caused by unconstitutional deprivations of civil rights." Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 405 (5th Cir.1961);3 see also McFadden v. Sanchez, 710 F.2d 907, 911 (2d Cir.1983) ("To whatever extent section 1988 makes state law applicable to section 1983 actions, it does not require deference to a survival statute that would bar or limit the remedies available under section 1983 for unconstitutional conduct that causes death.").

This case requires us to decide for the first time whether the goals of deterrence and compensation require the survival of § 1983 actions where unlawful conduct immediately contributes to, but does not proximately cause, death. I would conclude that the goals of deterrence and compensation do not support drawing a line requiring survival where, as in Brazier, unlawful conduct proximately causes death but permitting abatement where, as here, unlawful conduct contributes to, but does not proximately cause, death.

First, with respect to compensation, there is no distinction between the situation where—as in Brazier, 293 F.2d at 402 — the unlawful conduct caused the victim's death, and the situation here, where the unlawful conduct contributed to the victim's death. In either case, the person who suffered the harm cannot be compensated. But Brazier rejected the argument that "Congress purposefully extended the sanction of a civil damage suit only to the person who was the immediate physical victim of such violations." 293 F.2d at 404. Instead, the former Fifth Circuit explained that "it defies history to conclude that Congress purposely meant to assure to the living freedom from such unconstitutional deprivations, but that, with like precision, it meant to withdraw the protection of civil rights statutes against the peril of death." Id. In considering the purpose and scope of § 1983, that court explained that "[v]iolent injury that would kill was not less prohibited than violence which would cripple." Id.

We remain bound by Brazier because Robertson did nothing to overrule that case.4 Robertson certainly emphasized the importance of the compensatory purpose of § 1983, but in so doing the Court explained that the personal representative of the original plaintiff's estate was not a close family member. 436 U.S. at 591-92, 98 S.Ct. at 1995-96.5 That is not the case here, where Mr. Gilliam's personal representative is his mother. Nor do I find it logical to conclude that the simple fact of the victim's death renders abatement consistent with the compensation goal of § 1983, because under that view, the compensation goal is always consistent with abatement upon death. If this were the Supreme Court's view in Robertson, it could simply have said so. Instead, the Robertson Court's analysis of the compensation goal considered the nature of the relationship between the person ultimately compensated and the victim of the unlawful act. 436 U.S. at 591-92, 98 S.Ct. at 1995-96. Here, unlike in Robertson, that relationship is one of mother and son. Thus, with respect to the compensation goal, this case is distinguishable from Robertson and indistinguishable from Brazier. As such, I believe that abatement of the action in this case would be inconsistent with the compensatory purpose of § 1983.6

Second, I do not believe that the survival of § 1983 actions through wrongful death statutes is, by itself, sufficient to satisfy the goal of abuse prevention. To be sure, at least that much is required to give effect to the deterrent purpose of § 1983 because a contrary rule would not only fail to deter abuse, but would actually encourage abuse by creating an incentive for those committing abuses under color of state law to kill, rather than merely injure, the victims of their unlawful conduct.7 But the absence of an incentive is not the same as the presence of a deterrent. Surely, more is required to carry out the goal of abuse prevention embodied in § 1983. Specifically, those who commit unlawful acts under color of state law should not receive a windfall as a result of those same unlawful acts. The dissent in Robertson complained that "[a] defendant who has violated someone's constitutional rights has no legitimate interest in a windfall release upon the death of the victim." 436 U.S. at 603, 98 S.Ct. at 2001 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). While that reasoning did not prevail in Robertson, it seems highly persuasive where, as here, the violation contributed to the victim's death. In holding otherwise, this Court now permits Officer Emmanuel to escape liability for her unlawful actions because of a windfall resulting, ultimately, from those very same unlawful actions. When considering the deterrent purpose of § 1983, it is insignificant to me that the unlawful acts merely contributed to, rather than proximately caused, that windfall, because proximate causation has nothing to do with intent or wilfulness.

The Majority asserts that "[t]his case is... an unusual one," because it falls between provisions of Alabama law that would have permitted the Estate to maintain a § 1983 claim against Officer Emmanuel.8 But even an unusual case can be inconsistent with one of the policy goals underlying § 1983. For example, in Jaco v. Bloechle, 739 F.2d 239 (6th Cir.1984), the Sixth Circuit confronted a case in which Ohio law would not provide for the survival of a § 1983 action because the victim, who was shot by a police officer, died instantly and therefore did not suffer a personal injury within his lifetime as required for the action to survive under Ohio law. Id. at 242 & n. 4. In concluding that "Ohio's survivorship law [was] ... hostile to `the Constitution and laws of the United States,'" the Sixth Circuit explained that, "[s]urely, § 1983's further purpose to discourage official constitutional infringement would be threatened if [the victim's mother] were not permitted to champion her dead son's civil rights." Id. at 245. I believe the same is true here.

For all of these reasons, I would conclude that Alabama's survivorship statute, to the extent that it would allow those acting under color of state law to escape § 1983 liability for unconstitutional conduct that immediately contributes to a person's death, is inconsistent with the goals of compensation and abuse prevention underlying and embodied in § 1983. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court.