42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 claims against a state or its agencies in federal court are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Johnson v. New York · filed 2003-04-04

Insofar as Johnson seeks to assert claims against the State or its agencies in federal court, his action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 suits against state officials in their official capacities cannot recover retrospective monetary damages when the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit.

Doe, John v. Heck, Carla · filed 2003-04-16

To the extent the plaintiffs’ suit against the defendants in their official capacities with the Bureau seeks retrospective monetary damages, this action constitutes a suit against the state that is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for state courts.

Erikson v. Arizona Supreme Ct. · filed 2003-04-16

Similarly, Erikson’s contention that the Civil Rights Act of 1871 abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity is without merit.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a Section 1983 suit against a state transportation department and its officials sued in their official capacities.

Yu v. TX Dept of Trans · filed 2003-04-21

Li Yu appeals, pro se, the dismissal of her action under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985 and Texas tort law. ... The district court properly held it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because TxDOT and Herrera and Holtz, in their official capacities, were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 claim against a private prison operator cannot be dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim on an unresolved Eleventh Amendment immunity ground.

Abayomi v. Cornell Corr Corp · filed 2003-04-22

Because the application of the Eleventh Amendment to a private operator of a state prison has not been determined by this court, the issue does not warrant a dismissal on this ground as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

A school board that is an arm of the state is immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court.

Camden County Recovery Coalition v. Camden City Board of Education for the Public School System · filed 2003-05-16

Because the vast majority of the School Board’s funding comes from the State of New Jersey, and its autonomy is severely limited by the Governor’s right to appoint three board members and to veto board actions, this Court finds that the Camden City School Board is an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes. The School Board is therefore not subject to suit in federal court. Accordingly, Count I of the complaint, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, will be dismissed since the Plaintiffs have named the School Board as the only Defendant in that Count.

Official-capacity § 1983 claims seeking prospective equitable relief for an ongoing violation of federal law may proceed against state officials under Ex parte Young.

Lewis v. New Mexico Department of Health · filed 2001-08-16

Since the district court issued its order, however, the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their ADA claim, leaving only their § 1983 claims alleging violations of their federal rights under the Medicaid Act and the Constitution. Accordingly, the only remaining defendants are the two individuals named in their official capacities, narrowing our inquiry concerning Eleventh Amendment immunity to whether the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows plaintiffs to seek prospective equitable relief for violations of federal law by state officials. We conclude Ex parte Young applies and affirm the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.

State agencies are immune from Section 1983 suits under the Eleventh Amendment unless immunity has been abrogated or waived.

Reid v. Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board · filed 2003-06-06

We further agree that plaintiff’s claims against OPPB and DOC are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 claim for monetary relief against a state is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Woods v. Tennessee · filed 2003-06-13

As the district court noted, Woods’s suit for monetary relief against the State of Tennessee is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against state officials for acts in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

FUTURE DEV. OF PR v. Estado Libre Asociado De PR · filed 2003-06-26

Taking into account these principles, Plaintiff's claims under section 1983 for violation of its constitutional rights by the Defendants acting in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A Section 1983 claim against a state official cannot proceed under Ex Parte Young when the asserted federal-law violation is frivolous.

Pearlman v. Vigil-Giron · filed 2003-07-17

Therefore, because there is no recognized constitutional right to a ballot free of printed candidate names, Pearlman’s claim is frivolous and is barred under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officers sued in their individual capacities are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Gravitt v. Brown · filed 2003-07-18

We note that the district court erred in concluding that Gravitt’s claims against the individual law enforcement officers were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Gravitt sued the officers in their individual, rather than their official, capacities for damages.

Section 1983 official-capacity damages claims against a Georgia sheriff for jail use-of-force policy and related deputy training and discipline are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Manders v. Lee · filed 2003-07-28

We conclude that Sheriff Peterson functions as an “arm of the State” in establishing use-of-force policy at the jail and in training and disciplining his deputies in that regard, and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for these particular functions.

A § 1983 claim for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against a state official in his official capacity is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Davidson v. NHDOC · filed 2003-08-04

The plaintiff is seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant in his official capacity. Therefore, there is no Eleventh Amendment bar to this claim.

Section 1983 claims against a state, its corrections agencies, and a warden acting in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Taggart v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2003-09-03

... we also agree that the Eleventh Amendment bars Mr. Taggart’s claims against the State of Oklahoma, the DOC, DOC Medical Services, and Warden Hines (acting in his official capacity).

The court applied its Eleventh Amendment waiver ruling to § 1983 claims based on IDEA violations.

M.A. Ex Rel. E.S. v. State-Operated School District of Newark · filed 2003-09-16

The State reasserted the sovereign immunity argument in their motion to dismiss the § 1983 and state law claims. Our analysis of the Eleventh Amendment issue in Part III.A, infra, controls with respect to the State's objections to all three sets of Plaintiffs' claims under the IDEA, § 1983, and state law.

State correctional agencies are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from Eighth Amendment claims brought under Section 1983.

Thompson v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2003-09-18

The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and Oregon State Correctional Institute (“OSCI”) on Thompson’s Eighth Amendment claims because ... they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 suits seeking prospective injunctive relief, including reinstatement, for ongoing violations of federal law are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Bradley v. North Carolina Department of Transportation · filed 2003-10-07

However, suits for prospective injunctive relief, including reinstatement, from ongoing violations of federal law fall within an exception to the general rule and are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Barnett v. State of Colorado · filed 2003-10-10

The State of Colorado has not consented to be sued in this case and the United States Supreme Court has previously determined that Congress’ passage of § 1983 did not abrogate the state’s sovereign immunity.

A state agency is immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court unless the state consents.

Dixon v. BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2003-10-14

Preliminarily, the Court notes that under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, a state, its agencies and departments are immune from suits in federal court brought by its citizens or the citizens of another state, unless it consents. ... Accordingly, plaintiffs complaint against the Baltimore City Police Department, a state agency, shall be dismissed.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against a state official in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Price v. University of Alabama · filed 2003-10-23

The court finds that Witt, in his official capacity as President of the University, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Therefore, Mr. Price’s claims against Witt in his official capacity for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are due to be dismissed.

Section 1983 suits against a state and its department of corrections are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Courtemanche v. Gregels · filed 2003-10-23

First, the district court properly concluded that the State of Michigan and MDOC had immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against a state employee sued in an official capacity when the Eleventh Amendment bars the claim.

Johnson v. Irvine · filed 2003-10-24

The district court properly concluded that the complaint was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, because it sought monetary damages from a state employee in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

Bennett v. City of Atlantic City · filed 2003-10-31

Nor has there been Congressional abrogation of the State’s immunity. As to Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the United States Supreme Court has clearly stated that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not “override States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.” ... Therefore, because State Defendants have not waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, nor has Congress abrogated it, Counts I, II, III and V of Plaintiffs’ complaint are barred as against the State Defendants.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal damages suit against state officials in their official capacities when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Jackson v. Peters · filed 2003-11-12

However, even if Mr. Jackson has a basis for alleging that one or more of these state defendants are responsible, he may not seek compensation from them in federal court because, as the magistrate judge explained, they are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from a federal suit seeking money damages.

Section 1983 does not override states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Scheckel v. Iowa Department of Revenue & Finance · filed 2003-11-24

Section 1983 does not override the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Derrick v. Ward · filed 2004-01-08

Furthermore, Congress did not abrogate the sovereign immunity of the state in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages claims against state officials in their official capacities.

Allen v. Egan · filed 2004-01-16

Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Romero v. Boulder County Da's Office · filed 2004-01-22

Here, the State of Colorado has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and congressional enactment of § 1983 did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for state agencies or state employees sued in their official capacities.

Skalaban v. Department of Children and Families · filed 2004-02-02

Additionally, although Congress may override Eleventh Amendment immunity pursuant to section five of the Fourteenth Amendment, nothing in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a CUNY senior college are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the college is an arm of the state.

Clissuras v. City University Of New York · filed 2004-02-03

Their virtually identical complaints alleged numerous constitutional violations, ostensibly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and a variety of state law claims. ... Therefore, we agree with all of the district courts in our circuit that have considered the issue that a CUNY senior college, here New York City College of Technology, is an "arm of the state." Plaintiffs' suits against CUNY are equivalent to suits against the State of New York and are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for monetary damages against a state agency.

Zahran Ex Rel. Zahran v. New York Department of Education · filed 2004-02-10

Because the relief sought here by plaintiffs is entirely monetary, see infra, the Section 1983 claim will be dismissed as against the DOE.

Section 1983 permits personal damages claims and prospective injunctions against state officials for unconstitutional conduct, while the Eleventh Amendment bars recovery from the state treasury.

Sarteschi v. Lester F. Burlein, Chairman, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission · filed 1975-01-06

The Supreme Court has accommodated both the Eleventh Amendment and the civil rights provisions, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by prohibiting suits which seek to collect money judgments from the state treasury, while allowing suits which either seek personal money judgments against state officials as damages for unconstitutional deprivations or seek prospective injunctive relief from unconstitutional deprivations taken under color of state law.

Section 1983 permits suits against counties because they are not arms of the state and lack Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Jefferson County Fiscal Court v. Peerce · filed 2004-02-23

Thus, under federal law, counties are not arms of the state. Accordingly, none of the Appellants are protected from liability under § 1983 by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state agency is immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment unless it consents to suit.

Davidson v. Stockton · filed 2004-03-24

C.P.S. is a state agency; therefore, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes it from suit in federal court unless it consents to such a suit.

Section 1983 does not waive a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so state agencies remain immune from a § 1983 suit unless the state waives that immunity.

Stubbs Ex Rel. Goolsby v. Kline · filed 1978-12-28

The Commonwealth agencies are immune from suit, however, unless the state has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, ... and the Supreme Court has declined to treat § 1983 as a constructive waiver of sovereign immunity. ... Accordingly, we hold that, since the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, Counts III and V of plaintiffs’ amended complaint must be dismissed as to the Commonwealth agency defendants.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity; a state college that is an arm of the state cannot be sued under it without a waiver.

Jacobs v. College of William and Mary · filed 1980-07-29

Having determined this, the next question is whether the State has waived this immunity, permitting suits against the College under § 1983. We conclude that it has not.

Eleventh Amendment immunity can bar a § 1983 claim against state defendants and make an amendment adding that claim futile.

Ferrell v. Busbee · filed 1981-08-19

It is also questionable whether plaintiff has identified any right protected under the Constitution and laws of the United States which has been deprived him by defendants, as required by section 1983. Finally, plaintiff’s action under the amended complaint would be barred by the eleventh amendment as to some of the named defendants.

A § 1983 action against state agencies is barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent the state’s consent.

Robinson v. Worthington · filed 1982-04-28

Absent the consent of the State to such a suit, this action against State agencies is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

Meeker v. Manning · filed 1982-06-10

The Court has clearly held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is pleaded by the plaintiffs in the case at bar, does not represent a congressional decision to abrogate the eleventh amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

O'COnnOr v. State of Nevada · filed 1982-08-24

The Supreme Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of the eleventh amendment immunity of the states.

In a Section 1983 suit, the Eleventh Amendment requires dismissal of a state defendant and damages claims against state officers acting in their official capacity.

Kensell v. State Of Oklahoma · filed 1983-09-13

The trial court correctly noted that, regardless of the merits of Kensell's complaint, the Eleventh Amendment would require dismissal of the State of Oklahoma as a defendant and dismissal of the claim for damages against state officers acting in their official capacity.

Section 1983 claims for damages or injunctive relief against a community college district that is an arm of the state are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity absent a state waiver.

Stones v. Los Angeles Community College District · filed 1983-09-28

Thus, in this case, no action may be maintained against the District for monetary damages or for injunctive relief absent an express waiver of immunity from the State of California. As no evidence of waiver was presented to the Court (and the Court is unable to discover a waiver in this context), the District is immune from suit and is entitled to have judgment entered in its favor accordingly.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits seeking payment from the state treasury.

Windward Partners, a Registered Hawaii Partnership v. George Ariyoshi, Governor of the State of Hawaii · filed 1982-12-01

The framing of plaintiff’s claims as a § 1983 action does not change our conclusion. In Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979), the Supreme Court held that section 1983 does not abrogate or “override” the sovereign immunity of the states under the eleventh amendment.

Section 1983 does not override a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state cannot be sued under it without consent.

Brinkman v. Gilligan · filed 1985-05-24

As explained by the Quern Court, the case of Alabama v. Pugh was so decided because a state cannot even be joined as a defendant in a § 1983 action without violating the Eleventh Amendment. ... Therefore, we find the issue of whether the Ohio State Board of Education and the Ohio State Department of Education can be sued in this Court for violating federal law is controlled by the Pugh decision and any supposition to the contrary has been dispelled by that case.

Section 1983 permits claims against persons acting under color of state law, subject to immunity limits for state entities and officials sued in their official capacities.

Garcia v. Board Of Education Of The Socorro Consolidated School District · filed 1985-11-22

This court has recently considered whether local school boards in New Mexico are to be considered state or local entities for eleventh amendment purposes, and has concluded that they should be considered arms of the state. ... The eleventh amendment therefore bars this suit against the school board and its members in their official capacities.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law, but an official-capacity suit may be barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Garcia v. Board of Education of Socorro Consolidated School District · filed 1985-11-22

Further, a suit in a federal court against the members of a state board or agency acting in their official capacities is a suit against the board or agency itself, and is subject to the eleventh amendment immunity restriction. ... The eleventh amendment therefore bars this suit against the school board and its members in their official capacities.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officers in their personal capacities, while Eleventh Amendment immunity generally bars damages claims against officers sued officially.

Charlotte I. Gamble, Etc., Etc. v. The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services · filed 1986-01-14

Generally speaking, then, this will bar damage awards against state officers sued in their official capacities in suits brought in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state board cannot be enjoined under it.

United States v. The State Of Alabama · filed 1986-07-10

Further, the Supreme Court has held that Congress did not intend Section 1983 to abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Thus, the Knight intervenors are barred from seeking this injunction against the state Board under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity for damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacity.

Minotti v. Brian Lensink, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation · filed 1986-08-19

In light of the first five principles, however, it is clear that Minotti’s section 1983 action comes within the ambit of the eleventh amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Rozek v. Topolnicki · filed 1989-01-12

Moreover, Congress did not abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Florida deputy sheriffs are not immune from official-capacity suits under Section 1983 on Eleventh Amendment grounds.

Ortega v. Schramm · filed 1991-01-28

Defendant Schramm, as deputy sheriff of Glades County, Florida, is therefore not immune in his official capacity from suits brought against him in his official capacity under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Section 1983 permits personal-capacity claims against state officials for unconstitutional acts committed during their official duties; the Eleventh Amendment does not bar those claims.

Roger Payne, III v. Robert Brown, Jr. · filed 1992-04-29

The district court relied on Cowan v. University of Louisville School of Medicine, 900 F.2d 936 (6th Cir.1990), for the proposition that state officials could not be held personally liable for unconstitutional actions taken in the course of their official duties. Cowan's holding was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Hafer v. Melo, 112 S.Ct. 358, 363 (1991). See also Ritchie v. Wickstrom, 938 F.2d 689, 692 (6th Cir.1991). The Eleventh Amendment issue has thus been resolved in Mr. Payne's favor.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity for a nonconsenting state or its board.

Stogner v. Com. of Ky. · filed 1985-02-02

Thus, the Court has held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not override eleventh amendment immunity. ... In this case, the court finds neither consent to suit by the state, nor an unequivocal congressional intention by Congress to override eleventh amendment immunity. Thus, defendants Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Board are immune from suit, and all of plaintiffs’ claims against them both legal and equitable shall be dismissed.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state college board and its officers sued only in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

O'CONNOR v. Peru State College · filed 1985-02-22

However, the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges and any officers of Peru State College being sued in their official capacities only, are entitled to immunity from damages under the Eleventh Amendment for purposes of Title IX and § 1983 actions.

Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar relief in a Section 1983 suit challenging officials’ unconstitutional actions when the state is not the real party in interest.

Brown v. Manning · filed 1985-03-06

At this point, it is appropriate to note that the evolving concepts of Eleventh Amendment immunity of states not consenting to suit in federal court do not preclude the relief sought in this action.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Muchnick v. State of Colorado · filed 2004-07-20

Although Plaintiff correctly notes that in some cases Congress may abrogate the Eleventh Amendment to allow a party to sue a State for constitutional violations, see, e.g., Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976), the Supreme Court has held that § 1983 does not abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979).

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Neal v. Lewis · filed 2004-07-20

Congress did not intend to abrogate the immunity of states under the Eleventh Amendment when it enacted 42 U.S.C § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit retroactive damages payable by a state college when the State has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ford v. Reynolds · filed 2004-07-23

To the extent the Speaker Plaintiffs are seeking retroactive monetary damages in the form of the unpaid honoraria, such relief is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Those damages are amounts that Plaintiffs allege should have been paid not by the individual defendants personally, but by York College, which is an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit an official-capacity claim for a new election when that relief would undo the results of a completed election and is therefore barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Students For A Conservative America v. M.R.C. Greenwood · filed 2004-08-11

We agree with the district court that the Eleventh Amendment precludes granting the plaintiffs' request for a new election because it is not a request for prospective relief. Its purpose is to undo the results of an election that has already been given effect.

Section 1983 claims against officials of the Michigan Judges Retirement System are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the system is akin to a political subdivision rather than an arm of the state.

Ernst v. Roberts · filed 2004-08-12

The federal law counts relied upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for pleading the liability of Defendants (the Treasurer of the State of Michigan and affiliated parties), all of whom are government officials. ... Our holding is not that the state has waived immunity to suit against the JRS; rather, for the reasons stated below, we hold that the JRS is akin to a political subdivision (and not an arm of the state), which means that immunity never applied.

In a § 1983 official-capacity suit, an official has Eleventh Amendment immunity if the official’s state agency has it.

Ernst v. Roberts · filed 2004-08-12

When sued in their official capacities, individual defendants enjoy immunity if they are officials of a state agency that would enjoy immunity.

Section 1983 claims for money damages against states and state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ward v. Murphy · filed 2004-08-16

It is well settled that the Eleventh Amendment to the United States constitution bars causes of action for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against states and individual defendants in their official capacity.

Section 1983 monetary claims against a Puerto Rico government entity and its officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Vélez Rivera v. Agosto-Alicea · filed 2004-08-24

In the instant case, Plaintiffs have not challenged the fact that all Defendants are afforded immunity in their official capacity for the claims requesting monetary damages. Therefore, since the suit against these Defendants in their official capacities, as well as the claims brought against the GDB, a government entity, is in fact a suit against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Plaintiffs’ monetary claims against all Defendants in their official capacities, as well as their monetary claims against the GDB are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Section 1983 claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against officials in their official capacities are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, although claims for damages in that capacity are barred.

Parrilla v. Santiago · filed 2004-09-27

However, plaintiff is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against defendants, and while Eleventh Amendment immunity provides protection to defendants in their official capacity only from an award of damages, it does not protect them from in-junctive and declaratory relief.

Section 1983 suits against a state corrections department and its security classification committee are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Adams v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 1985-12-06

Both the Michigan Department of Corrections and the Security Classification Committee are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Moore v. Morris · filed 2004-11-02

The magistrate judge concluded that Mr. Moore’s claim for monetary damages against ODOT were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and should be dismissed upon initial review. We agree with the district court’s adoption of this analysis with respect to Mr. Moore’s claim for damages against ODOT.

A state is not a “person” subject to § 1983 liability, is immune under the Eleventh Amendment, and cannot be subjected to a § 1983 damages award.

Nichols v. Rysavy · filed 1987-02-25

Section 1983 provides a cause of action only against "person[s]." A state is immune from a section 1983 suit under the eleventh amendment. Appellants also impermissibly seek damages against South Dakota rather than the prospective injunctive relief contemplated by section 1983.

A state is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 and is immune under the Eleventh Amendment from a § 1983 damages action.

Nichols v. Rysavy · filed 1987-01-15

Section 1983 provides a cause of action only against “person[s]." A state is immune from a section 1983 suit under the eleventh amendment. Appellants also impermissibly seek damages against South Dakota rather than the prospective injunctive relief contemplated by section 1983.

A state board of education that is an arm of the state and has not unequivocally waived immunity cannot be sued in federal court on § 1983 claims.

Milbouer v. Keppler · filed 1986-09-16

The State Board of Education may not be sued in federal court on plaintiff’s federal claims or pendent state law claims.

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar Section 1983 suits against municipalities and other local governmental entities.

Biggs v. Block · filed 1986-03-20

Local governmental agencies do not enjoy the immunities from suit that the Eleventh Amendment confers upon states.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a Section 1983 suit in federal court against a state or its agency unless the state waives immunity.

Margaret Spaulding, and James Bush, Intervenors-Appellants v. University of Washington · filed 1984-11-26

The eleventh amendment to the Constitution bars suit in federal court by citizens against a state or its agency under section 1983 unless the state has waived its immunity. ... We therefore hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the nursing faculty’s section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 permits an entity to qualify as a person while remaining immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suits for monetary relief.

Zentgraf v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY · filed 1980-06-04

It is clear that an entity can be a “person” within the ambit of § 1983 and still be immune under the Eleventh Amendment to suits for monetary relief.

Section 1983 does not create an exception to the Eleventh Amendment's bar on suits that are in substance against a state.

Arthur Krause, Administrator of the Estate of Allison Krause, Deceased, et al. v. Rhodes · filed 1972-11-17

The Civil Rights Act, Sec. 1983, cannot be engrafted on the Eleventh Amendment by judicial construction.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity by judicial construction.

Krause v. Rhodes · filed 1972-11-17

The Civil Rights Act, § 1983, cannot be engrafted on the Eleventh Amendment by judicial construction.

Section 1983 does not waive a state's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from awards of monetary damages.

Skehan v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College · filed 1978-12-21

Such a remand is unnecessary in this case because, absent a much clearer statement by the Supreme Court to the effect that § 1983 must now be construed as waiving the states' sovereign immunity from awards of monetary damages, this Court considers itself bound by the holding of Edelman to the contrary. ... We conclude that Skehan's argument that the College's sovereign immunity has been waived by the congressional imposition of suits upon the states in § 1983 is precluded by the Supreme Court's opinion in Edelman v. Jordan.

Section 1983 provides no avenue for suing a state or state alter ego in federal court when the Eleventh Amendment bars the action.

Henry v. Texas Tech University · filed 1979-01-25

Thus if Texas Tech is the “alter ego” of the state, suit under §§ 1983 and 1981 against it is barred by the eleventh amendment. ... Both Texas Tech University and the medical school, then, are alter egos of the state and this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suit against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Section 1983 does not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Savage v. Com. of Pennsylvania · filed 1979-08-15

Accordingly, I reject plaintiff’s argument that section 1983 limits the Commonwealth’s eleventh amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not override a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, so an unconsenting State is immune from a § 1983 suit.

Crutcher v. Kentucky · filed 1980-07-21

The Eleventh Amendment immunity is applicable to suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. ... The Commonwealth of Kentucky is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 by plaintiff Crutcher.

Section 1983 allows damages suits against state officials in their individual capacities without an Eleventh Amendment defense based solely on a state indemnification statute.

Lloyd L. Downing, M. D. v. R. Allen Williams, Superintendent · filed 1980-08-21

However, as to the question of a damage suit against these defendants in their individual capacity, the Eleventh Amendment clearly provides no immunity, despite the State’s indemnity statute. Such an indemnity statute is only an agreement between the state and these individuals and cannot thereby be converted into an extension of Eleventh Amendment immunity by the state. ... If we were to hold otherwise, by passing comprehensive indemnity statutes, states could set up sovereign immunity as a defense for almost all individuals sued for damages in their individual capacities under Section 1983. ... These individual defendants therefore have no Eleventh Amendment defense for a suit against them in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit retrospective monetary relief against a state in federal court unless the state’s immunity has been abrogated by consent or specific congressional authorization.

Ward v. Hekman · filed 1980-09-15

Damages, or other retrospective monetary relief, are not recoverable against a state in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 absent abrogation of the state’s immunity either by the consent of the state to suit or by specific congressional authorization to sue the States.

Section 1983 does not by itself abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, so a plaintiff must clearly show statutory authority to overcome that immunity.

Young v. State of Tex. · filed 1981-02-02

This does not mean that § 1983 is without relevance to private actions against the State, but it does indicate that the plaintiff must make a very clear showing of statutory authority in order to overcome the presumption of Eleventh Amendment sovereignty.

Section 1983 does not override the Eleventh Amendment's bar against suits against a state without its consent.

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. California · filed 1981-04-03

Thus, for example, the bar against suit imposed by the Eleventh Amendment applies with equal vigor in the context of actions based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and in the context of actions based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief in federal court notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment.

Friedman v. Weiner · filed 1981-06-03

It is settled law, however, that state officials may be sued for prospective injunctive relief in federal court notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 includes states among potential defendants to the extent consistent with their Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state that waives that immunity is suable as a “person” under the statute.

Irwin v. Calhoun · filed 1981-09-16

Even if the scope of § 1331 could be restricted by reference to § 1983, we find that Congress intended to include states within the scope of § 1983 defendants to the extent consistent with their eleventh amendment immunity. Thus § 1983 does not impliedly negate pendent party jurisdiction over the Commonwealth whether jurisdiction is based on § 1343 or § 1331.

Section 1983 does not override the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Laskaris v. Thornburgh · filed 1981-10-05

Although Title VII overrides the states' eleventh amendment immunity, Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, section 1983 does not, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. at 338-45, 99 S.Ct. at 1143-47; Skehan III, 590 F.2d at 490-91.

Section 1983 claims for back wages against a state entity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but claims seeking injunctive relief may proceed even if implementing the relief incidentally requires state funds.

Thrasher v. Missouri State Highway Commission · filed 1981-11-10

Therefore, according to the case law, plaintiff's claim for back wages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is barred by the eleventh amendment and is dismissed. Actions seeking injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, consistent with the eleventh amendment, are permissible in federal court even if they require the state to expend some public funds in implementing relief and thus even if the award has an ancillary effect on the state treasury.

Section 1983 suits against a nonconsenting state in federal court are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and a later judicial recognition of a cause of action does not retroactively interrupt limitations.

McConnell v. Critchlow · filed 1981-11-09

Under the Eleventh Amendment, states that have not consented to suit are immune from § 1983 suits in federal court. ... A decision recognizing a cause of action after the period has run does not retroactively interrupt the running of the limitations period.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state agency is immune from a money-damages claim payable from the state treasury.

Jones v. State of Mich. · filed 1981-10-27

In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court hereby holds that the Board of Dentistry — as a state agency — is immune from the $100,000 damages claim.

Section 1983 can cover state educational institutions as “persons,” but the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary-relief suits against institutions that are state instrumentalities.

Lecompte v. University of Houston System · filed 1982-04-01

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary relief against educational institutions that are so closely connected with the state as to be considered instrumentalities of the state even though such institutions may be “persons” within the ambit of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits actions against state officials in their official capacities for injunctive or declaratory relief despite the Eleventh Amendment.

Jackson v. Hayakawa · filed 1982-08-03

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions for injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages actions against a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, regardless of whether the agency is a statutory “person.”

Rasky v. Department of Registration & Education · filed 1982-11-29

Rasky’s Section 1983 claim against Department is fatally defective. Substantial authority supports the proposition that as a state agency, Department should not be considered a “person” within Section 1983’s coverage. But even if it were, the Eleventh Amendment insulates it from Section 1983 damage liability. ... Whether or not a “person,” Department is unquestionably invulnerable to Section 1983 damage actions under the Eleventh Amendment’s sovereign immunity doctrine.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Coffin v. South Carolina Department of Social Services · filed 1983-01-10

Congress did not exercise its power to abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against states or their agencies because the Eleventh Amendment bars them.

Stanley v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission · filed 1983-03-31

The Eleventh Amendment, however, does bar claims for damages against states and their agencies brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits an otherwise valid claim against defendants in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands without an Eleventh Amendment immunity bar because that amendment does not apply there.

Island Aviation, Inc. v. Mariana Islands Airport Authority · filed 1983-05-26

As such, the Court holds that the Eleventh Amendment has no application in the CNMI and may not defeat an otherwise valid claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 damages claims against state universities that are alter egos of the state when the award would be payable from university assets.

Cannon v. University of Health Sciences · filed 1983-06-14

In this case, because the state universities are the alter ego of the State, any damage award chargeable to university assets is an award against the State itself. No authority supports Cannon’s argument that this analysis is altered by the possibility that a damage award would be met through insurance proceeds or from federal funds. If Cannon’s suit would result in a damage award payable by the universities, it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state or state agency’s Eleventh Amendment immunity because it contains no expression of congressional intent to do so.

Los Angeles Branch NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified School District · filed 1983-09-01

Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor § 1343, nor 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contains an expression of Congressional intent to abrogate California’s immunity. Therefore none operates to lift the Eleventh Amendment bar.

An interstate transit authority that is an arm of its signatory states may invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 constitutional-tort claim arising from its governmental police function.

Strange v. Chumas · filed 1983-09-30

Plaintiffs claim, which falls within the limited immunity retained by WMATA in section 80 of the Compact, is thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment and the suit must be dismissed as to defendant WMATA.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 money damages against a state agency when the judgment would be paid from the state treasury.

Lachica v. Jaffe · filed 1983-10-12

This prohibition applies as well in civil right suits instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 did not abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Productions & Leasing v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc. · filed 1983-10-13

It is clear that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

A state university that is an arm of the state is immune from Section 1983 damages, although prospective equitable relief remains available against officials.

Moreno v. Texas Southern University · filed 1983-10-17

Therefore, this court must find that T.S.U. is an arm of the state and immune to suit for damages under § 1983 and fourteenth amendment claims. Consequently, plaintiff is limited to equitable relief for these claims.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, so damages and retroactive-relief claims against a state agency cannot be pursued in federal court.

Colon-Rivera v. Puerto Rico Department of Social Services · filed 1984-05-31

It can hardly be disputed, however, that the retroactive and damage portions of appellant’s request against the Department, an agency of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, may not be sought in a federal forum. ... The Supreme Court has specifically held that enactment of § 1983 did not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the states.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits seeking damages payable from the state treasury.

Almond Pharmacy, Inc. v. Mankowitz · filed 1984-06-27

That section does not override the States’ Eleventh Amendment protection.

Section 1983 does not authorize suits against a state or its agencies in federal court regardless of whether the relief sought is retrospective or prospective, but state officials may be sued in their official capacity under § 1983 for prospective relief.

Kiper v. Louisiana State Board of Elementary & Secondary Education · filed 1984-08-01

But while neither the state nor its agencies may be sued in ... federal court under § 1983, whether the requested relief is retrospective or prospective, state officials may be sued in their official capacity for prospective relief.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a Section 1983 damages suit against a state agency or its officials when the entity is so closely affiliated with the state that the state is the real party in interest.

Gay Student Services, J.M. Minton, Keith Stewart and Patricia Wooldridge v. Texas a & M University · filed 1984-08-03

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits for monetary relief by private parties in federal court against a state and its agencies, absent waiver by the state. The Supreme Court has construed the Eleventh Amendment to bar suits for money damages such as this one under § 1983 against entities and officials so closely affiliated with the state as to make the state the real party in interest.

The Eleventh Amendment bars monetary relief on a § 1983 claim against a state university that is an arm of the state.

Hutchins v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University · filed 1984-10-11

Count II is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based on the constitutional violations alleged in Counts I and III. ... The Court now rules that defendants are protected by the Eleventh Amendment from any monetary judgment in this action.

The Eleventh Amendment bars money damages against a state and its officials on a § 1983 claim.

Mihalek Corp. v. State of Mich. · filed 1984-10-12

In brief summary, the action is one for infringement of copyright, violation of trademark, and violation of constitutional rights brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a pendent state claim for unfair competition and misappropriation of work product. ... This court holds that all defendants in this action are entitled to immunity under the eleventh amendment from plaintiff’s prayer for money damages under each of his four theories of liability.

To avoid Eleventh Amendment immunity in a Section 1983 official-capacity action, relief against state officials must be prospective and ancillary to an Ex parte Young injunction requiring compliance with federal law.

Banas v. John T. Dempsey, Michigan Welfare Rights Organization v. John T. Dempsey · filed 1984-10-18

Even orders and injunctions against state officials that are purely prospective in this sense are subject to the prohibitions of the Eleventh Amendment. ... To escape the bar of the Eleventh Amendment, an order against state officials must be both “prospective” ... ancillary to a ... injunction ordering state officials to comply with federal law — the “prospective-compliance exception.”

The Eleventh Amendment bars an individual’s Section 1983 damages action against a state in federal court.

Duncan v. West Virginia · filed 1984-11-16

First, Duncan sues the State of West Virginia for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Eleventh Amendment bars actions by individuals against states in federal court.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 action against a state commission and its members that seeks monetary damages and retroactive injunctive relief.

Chiz's Motel And Restaurant, Inc. v. Mississippi State Tax Commission · filed 1985-01-21

CMR brought this action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against the Commission and its members, seeking damages and injunctive relief. ... Applying these principles to the facts of this case, because CMR seeks monetary damages and an injunction that would operate retroactively, we concluded that the eleventh amendment bars CMR's action in federal court.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 damages suits against states and state officers when an award would be paid from the state treasury.

Cook v. Florida · filed 1985-04-24

Equally clear is the fact that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against States or their officers for money damages when the awards will have to be paid out of the States’ treasury. ... Courts have applied the aforesaid policy to bar § 1983 suits in federal courts against States and their officers.

An inverse-condemnation claim is cognizable under section 1983, but section 1983 does not override states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages.

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency · filed 1985-05-10

An action for inverse condemnation is cognizable under the federal civil rights statute. ... However, even though Council states a cognizable claim under § 1983, the eleventh amendment immunizes Nevada and California and the claim must be dismissed.

Counties and county officials are persons under section 1983 and do not share a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Crane v. Texas · filed 1985-05-02

In sum, we hold that neither Dallas County nor its officials are protected by the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment and that both the County and its officials are “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Nebraska Revised Statute section 20-148 does not waive Nebraska's sovereign immunity from section 1983 actions in federal court.

Patteson v. Johnson · filed 1985-05-03

In response thereto we reaffirm our earlier ... determination that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-148 (Reissue 1983) does not constitute a waiver-of sovereign immunity by the State of Nebraska for actions brought in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).

The Eleventh Amendment bars a federal section 1983 action against state prison officials sued only in their official capacities.

Scott v. George F. Denton Frank H. Cray John Doe · filed 1985-06-03

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the Eleventh Amendment barred Scott's action in federal court because the defendants were acting only in their official capacities.

The Eleventh Amendment bars retroactive benefits and damages under section 1983 against a state welfare agency, but does not automatically protect a county welfare agency or officials whose capacity has not been established.

Leo v. Savage v. Franklin Co. Welfare Department Wayne Rugh Ohio Department of Public Welfare, John C. Cuddy · filed 1985-06-13

The ODPW is a state defendant. Plaintiff's claim against the ODPW is solely for retroactive benefits and money damages and is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... The Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit suits against counties.

A self-sustaining state-created authority whose liabilities are paid from its own revenues is not necessarily an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 action.

DeSantis v. Ricci · filed 1985-06-28

In fact, the Authority is self-sustaining, ... and any legal liabilities which it incurs must be paid out of its own revenues. Nor may plaintiff, by virtue of this lawsuit, obtain a judgment against the State.

Section 1983 did not abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Shipley v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Delaware · filed 1985-08-26

Although the Fourteenth Amendment conferred on Congress the power to set aside the immunity granted to states under the Eleventh Amendment, ... Congress did not eliminate the immunity enjoyed by states in passing § 1983.

A Section 1983 action cannot be brought against a state agency without an Eleventh Amendment waiver.

Woodland Private Study Group v. State of NJ · filed 1985-08-29

It is well established that a federal civil rights action may not be brought against a state or a department or agency of a state unless the state waives its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment does not prevent a § 1983 court from ascertaining state law when deciding whether state officials violated incorporated federal requirements.

Everett v. Schramm · filed 1985-09-06

Indeed, Sec. 1983 would be rendered almost nugatory if federal courts are prohibited, by the eleventh amendment, from deciding matters of state law in cases brought against state officials.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 award of retroactive public benefits that redresses past violations and is indistinguishable from damages against the state.

Reed v. Health & Human Services · filed 1985-10-10

The retroactive benefits sought, however, cannot be seen as an adjunct of the court ordered prospective relief, but could only constitute redress for past violations of federal law. As such the award would be indistinguishable from damages. Edelman squarely holds that such relief is outside the remedial power of the federal courts.

Official-capacity claims seeking retroactive relief against state-university officers are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Miller v. Rutgers · filed 1985-10-16

Since plaintiff seeks retroactive relief against the officers for actions taken in their official capacity, I find that plaintiffs claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars federal § 1983 suits against an unconsenting State and its agencies.

Barger v. State of Kan. · filed 1985-11-04

It is well settled that the Eleventh Amendment, in the absence of consent, bars suit against the state or one of its agencies or departments in federal court.

In a § 1983 employment case, the Eleventh Amendment bars backpay from state funds but does not bar reinstatement, individual-capacity damages, or attorney's fees.

Dwyer v. Edward v. Regan, Individually and as Trustee and Administrative Head of the New York State Employees · filed 1985-11-21

Assuming that on remand Dwyer can amend his complaint to state a claim within the framework discussed above, we conclude that Dwyer’s claim for backpay would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but that his claims for damages, reinstatement, and attorney’s fees would not be so barred.

A Pennsylvania state university that is an arm of the Commonwealth is immune from a federal § 1983 suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Wynne v. Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania · filed 1985-12-20

Since we have previously found that Shippensburg University is a state agency by virtue of the degree of control exercised over it by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and since we have determined (see footnote 12) that Pennsylvania has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, we now declare that this lawsuit may not be maintained against Defendant Shippensburg University.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity because a state is not a “person” under the statute.

Griess v. State of Colo. · filed 1985-12-26

Plaintiff contends that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under which this case is brought, constitutes congressional abrogation of a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. This contention is erroneous. For § 1983 to constitute congressional abrogation, I must find that Congress intended a state to be a “person” for purposes of that statute. I cannot do this.

An interstate transit authority structured as an arm of its member states may invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 and constitutional claims.

Sanders v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 1986-01-09

This Court finds most persuasive the weight of authority which holds that WMATA is entitled to invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity as an arm of the government.

When no continuing federal-law violation remains, the Eleventh Amendment bars independent notice relief and a declaratory judgment addressing only a state official's past violation in a Section 1983 action.

Green v. Mansour · filed 1986-01-27

We hold that the District Court was correct in concluding that neither the “notice” proposed by petitioners nor a declaratory judgment should have issued in a case of this type.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a claim against a state agency is barred even when it seeks only prospective relief.

Baker v. Department of Environmental Conservation · filed 1986-05-16

Although Congress has authority to overturn a State's immunity in enacting legislation designed to protect rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, ... the Supreme Court has held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Such immunity also bars suits against state agencies. ... This jurisdictional bar encompasses not only those actions seeking retroactive relief but also those seeking prospective relief. Consequently, the Eleventh Amendment proscribes the instant action, and the complaint as presently phrased does not pass judicial muster.

A state corrections department retains sovereign immunity from § 1983 damages claims when the state has not waived that immunity.

Department of Corrections v. Hill · filed 1986-06-17

D.O.C. is a state agency and, therefore, enjoys state sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against Hawaii state officers in their official capacities because Hawaii has not waived sovereign immunity.

Makanui v. Department of Education · filed 1986-07-14

Hawaii has not waived its sovereign immunity from § 1983 damages liability. ... its officers and agents in their official capacities are immune from and cannot be held liable for claims for money damages for violations of constitutional rights under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not override a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Taylor v. Seamans · filed 1986-07-15

To so hold, this court would have to overrule the Supreme Court. “42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not override States' Eleventh Amendment immunity.”

Absent consent, waiver, or a claim for prospective injunctive relief, sovereign immunity bars a Section 1983 action against a State or state official sued for declaratory and monetary relief.

Angrisani v. City of New York · filed 1986-07-18

The Eleventh Amendment grants immunity to the States from suit in federal court absent their consent. Hence, a State is not a proper defendant to a § 1983 action, ... Plaintiff’s prayer for relief seeks only a declaratory judgment and monetary relief, not injunctive relief. Hence, this Court dismisses the § 1983 action against defendant Perales as also being barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

State agencies are immune from § 1983 suits under the Eleventh Amendment.

Deretich v. Office Of Administrative Hearings · filed 1986-08-13

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against "person[s]" only. State agencies are immune from section 1983 under the eleventh amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, so state agencies that are alter egos of the state cannot be sued for damages under the statute in federal court.

Voisin's Oyster House, Inc. v. Jesse J. Guidry, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Louisiana Wildlife a · filed 1986-09-08

Section 1983 does not override the Eleventh Amendment bar, ... Therefore, if appellees are alter egos of the state, they are immune from suit in federal court.

Louisiana parish school boards are not arms of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from Section 1983 claims.

Isaac D. Minton, Administrator of Estate of Minor, Connie Minton v. St. Bernard Parish School Board · filed 1986-10-22

Louisiana school boards, therefore, are not entitled to eleventh amendment immunity to Section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Lewis v. Kelchner · filed 1986-10-30

However, when Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983 it did not eliminate the state’s immunity.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 monetary relief against state officials in their official capacities.

Jeffries v. Celeste · filed 1986-12-11

In sum, the Court grants Defendants’ motion with respect to eleventh amendment immunity insofar as it seeks to bar Plaintiffs from recovering monetary damages from the Defendants in their official capacities.

State officers sued personally under § 1983 do not acquire the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because state law requires the state to indemnify them.

Guzman v. Van Demark · filed 1987-01-14

Although these defendants are officers of the State’s agency, the CHP, they are not shielded by the State’s eleventh amendment immunity. This holding applies to both the state and federal causes of action. ... On at least two occasions, the Ninth Circuit has explicitly rejected the argument that a wholly collateral and voluntary indemnification program between a state and its officers extends the state’s eleventh amendment immunity to the officers.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so federal damages claims payable from the state treasury cannot be asserted against the state.

CLIFT BY CLIFT v. Fincannon · filed 1987-04-13

However, the Supreme Court has definitively stated that § 1983 does not abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. ... It is clear that all of their § 1983 claims seek to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury and are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity from being asserted against the State of Texas in a federal court.

An interstate compact agency that functions as an arm of its compacting states is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity and is not amenable to a Section 1983 suit.

The Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc. v. The Port Authority Of New York And New Jersey · filed 1987-05-27

Thus, under the more rigorous requirements of ... the Port Authority is clearly an agency of the state and is thus entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Appellants' section 1983 suit against the Port Authority was properly dismissed.

State university curators sued officially are immune from § 1983 damages under the Eleventh Amendment, while individual-capacity liability requires acts directly linking each curator to the injury.

Hemphill v. Moore · filed 1987-06-24

Based upon the Curators' limited autonomy and the source of university funding, this Court concludes that the Board of Curators is entitled to immunity from suits for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment. This immunity extends to individual members of the Board sued in their official capacity. ... the plaintiff's complaint alleges no basis for the Curators' individual liability. ... the complaint fails to allege any acts taken individually.

A state university is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 suit when it has sufficient financial and operational autonomy that it is not an arm of the state.

Kovats v. Rutgers, The State University · filed 1987-06-30

Our examination of the circumstances surrounding Rutgers leads us to conclude that a majority of the relevant criteria weigh against considering Rutgers an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Rutgers was originally a private institution. Though it is now, at least in part, a state created entity which serves a state purpose with a large degree of state financing, it remains under state law an independent entity able to direct its own actions and responsible on its own for judgments resulting from those actions.

Section 1983 did not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages suits.

Fogle v. Benton County SCAN · filed 1987-07-20

In the case at hand, there has. been no consent to suit and the law is well settled that section 1983 did not do away with Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Absent congressional abrogation or state waiver, the Eleventh Amendment bars individual federal-law claims against a state or its agencies in federal court.

Kirwin v. New York State Office of Mental Health · filed 1987-07-25

the Eleventh Amendment bars federal law claims by individuals against a State or its agencies brought in federal' courts.

A state university that is an arm of the state is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit.

Jain v. University of Tennessee at Martin · filed 1987-08-17

This court concludes that UTM is an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

A state department of corrections is immune from a § 1983 suit under the Eleventh Amendment, but a plaintiff whose complaint identifies potentially proper individual defendants should receive an opportunity to amend.

Ritchie v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 1987-08-18

We agree with the district court that the Michigan Department of Corrections is immune from suit under the eleventh amendment. ... Because plaintiff asserted cognizable claims and the correct parties can be discerned from his complaint, this case is remanded for an opportunity to amend.

A state's operation of an interstate railroad does not amount to consent to federal suit under § 1983.

Dunn v. New Jersey Transit Corp. · filed 1987-11-13

The State of New Jersey has not consented to be sued in federal court for violations of §§ 1983 and 1985 merely by allowing the NJTC and NJTROI to continue to operate.

A governmental board that is sufficiently independent of the state is not an arm of the state and cannot invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity against a § 1983 action.

McDonald v. Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners · filed 1987-11-25

Viewing these factors as a whole, we conclude that the Levee Board is not an arm of the state and is not entitled to assert Mississippi’s eleventh amendment immunity.

An action under Section 1983 against a state governor may be dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.

Tennis Madison v. James Martin, Governor of the State of North Carolina Sheriff's Department, Lee County · filed 1988-01-22

Tennis Madison brought this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action against Jim Martin, Governor of North Carolina, to complain about the events surrounding his arrest and conviction for murder in 1957. ... We affirm the dismissal on immunity grounds.