42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Grenier Ex Rel. Grenier v. Kennebec County · filed 1990-03-21

Because § 1983 was never intended to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, it is immaterial whether or not the State is considered a person for purposes of this inquiry.

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

Black v. Goodman · filed 1990-04-10

At the outset, the court notes it is beyond dispute that Congress did not intend to abrogate the states’ eleventh amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for a nonconsenting state or its agencies.

Dube v. State University of New York · filed 1990-04-12

Therefore, since Dube’s federal causes of action are brought under section 1983, “in the absence of consent[, any claims against] the State or one of its agencies or departments ... [are] proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.”

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

Grizzell v. Howard · filed 1990-04-13

To the extent he seeks damages against defendants in their official capacities, his claims are barred by the eleventh amendment.

Section 1983 permits prospective relief against state officials sued in their official capacities despite an Eleventh Amendment defense.

Hoffman v. Maryland · filed 1990-04-17

The other defendants do not raise the Eleventh Amendment bar. Nor can they meritoriously so do since that Amendment does not prevent suits against persons acting in their official capacities seeking to restrain such officials from violating the Constitution of the United States.

A state is immune from a Section 1983 suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Ross v. Young · filed 1990-05-22

The State of Missouri, however, is immune from suit in this action under the Eleventh Amendment.

A Section 1983 claim against a state agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendment even when the plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief.

Durante v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission · filed 1990-05-24

Since Durante named only the Commission as a defendant in this action and not its members in their personal or official capacities, the section 1983 claim is clearly barred in its entirety by the Eleventh Amendment.

In a Section 1983 action, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state agency in federal court but permits injunctive or declaratory relief against a state official.

Kerr v. Kimmell · filed 1990-06-13

Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, neither a state nor its agencies may be sued in federal court. ... The court, however, also finds that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar plaintiff’s action against Dr. Kimmell, a state official, for injunctive or declaratory relief.

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

Thomas A. Schopler, D.D.S. v. Rupert Bliss · filed 1990-06-22

The Fourteenth Amendment does not by its own force override the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978); Jagnandan v. Giles, 538 F.2d 1166, 1184 (5th Cir.1976), nor did Congress abrogate that immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1145, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979); Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 400 (11th Cir.1986).

A hospital district that functions like a municipality rather than an arm of the state lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 action.

Magula v. Broward General Medical Center · filed 1990-08-15

Although counties, school districts, and municipalities are named as “independent establishments of the state” in both the Florida constitution and subsection 768.28(2) of the state statutes, these entities are subject to section 1983 actions in federal court. ... Considering the foregoing characteristics of the hospital district as defined by Florida law, the court concludes that the hospital district is more like a municipality than like an arm of the state and thus that Broward General Medical Center is not entitled to eleventh amendment immunity under federal law.

Eleventh Amendment immunity can bar damages in a § 1983 action against state corrections employees.

Williams v. Anthony Palmer, Elton Scott, Perry M. Johnson · filed 1990-08-15

Upon consideration, we affirm the dismissal of this case, as defendants were entitled to eleventh amendment immunity from damages.

A Section 1983 complaint is frivolous when the defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

James W. Cooper, Jr. v. Thomas Moyer, Hon., Chief Justice, Ohio Supreme Court, Administrative Judges of Ohio Courts of C · filed 1990-08-23

Cooper's civil rights complaint was frivolous because the defendants are immune from suit under the eleventh amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 suit for monetary damages against a state and its agencies unless the state consents.

MacDonald v. Michigan State of Bureaucracy · filed 1990-08-23

MacDonald's cause of action lacks an arguable basis in law because the eleventh amendment precludes any suit for monetary damages, absent consent, against defendant, the State of Michigan and its bureaucracy.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officers for acts performed in their official roles are treated as official-capacity suits barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Lawson v. Bouck · filed 1990-09-24

Plaintiff has sued three defendants for acts done in their positions as state officers. Plaintiff seeks only damages against the officers as relief. Under traditional analysis, this would be considered a personal-capacity suit. Rice and Cowan, however, hold that such suits are official-capacity actions, barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will therefore be granted.

Section 1983 claims against Florida sheriffs in their official capacities are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment because sheriffs act on behalf of counties.

Hufford v. Rodgers · filed 1990-09-25

At any rate, since sheriffs in Florida act only on behalf of the counties they serve, we hold that the Eleventh Amendment does not protect Florida sheriffs from liability under section 1983.

Alabama sheriffs and their deputies are immune from Section 1983 damages suits in their official capacities under the Eleventh Amendment.

Carr v. City Of Florence · filed 1990-11-07

In this section 1983 lawsuit, we affirm the district court's ruling that the sheriff of Lauderdale County, Alabama, and his deputies are immune from a lawsuit for damages in their official capacities under the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 does not allow relief against state officials that would direct them to conform their conduct to state law when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Rodgers v. Moyer · filed 1990-11-15

Rodgers' complaints against defendants Moyer and McManamon may also be dismissed, as the relief sought against these defendants would be, in essence, directing state officials to conform their conduct to state law, in violation of eleventh amendment immunities.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state agency cannot be sued under it without the state’s consent.

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. City of Los Angeles · filed 1990-12-04

The state has not consented to be sued under § 1983 and Congress did not override states' sovereign immunity when it enacted § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit retrospective money relief against a state department or a state official sued in his official capacity when the Eleventh Amendment bars the claim.

Rees v. Jones · filed 1990-12-11

The suit against the Department, and, what is the same thing, against Jones in his official capacity, see Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 (1985), fails under the eleventh amendment. Rees wants money from the state treasury, not prospective relief.

In a § 1983 suit, the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary relief against state corrections officials when that immunity applies.

Martin v. Brown · filed 1991-02-07

Morris Martin is a Michigan prisoner who appeals pro se from the dismissal of a civil rights case that he had filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. ... However, the monetary relief that he requests is barred by the eleventh amendment.

State employees sued in their official capacities are immune from damages in a § 1983 action under the Eleventh Amendment.

Martin v. Whalen · filed 1991-02-25

Under the eleventh amendment, state employees are immune from damages when a Sec. 1983 action is brought against them in their official capacity.

A § 1983 claim against a state corrections department that is an arm of the state is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Haynes v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 1991-03-05

Even if some of Haynes’s claims against prison officials had survived summary judgment, his claim against the Michigan Department of Corrections, an arm of the State of Michigan, would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 actions against states and state agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent state consent or waiver of immunity.

Ferritto v. Ohio Department of Highway Safety, Ohio State Highway Patrol, and Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles · filed 1991-03-19

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits actions against states and state agencies under section 1983 and section 1985.

Section 1983 permits personal liability for state officials sued individually for carrying out an unconstitutional state policy despite the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Garcia v. Tansy · filed 1991-03-22

Moreover, a defendant sued individually for merely carrying out an unconstitutional state policy is not protected from personal liability by the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

CUNY is immune from a Section 1983 suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Silver v. City University of New York · filed 1991-04-22

Silver’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is based on exactly the same conduct as the Title VII claim and lists the same defendants. First, assuming that a § 1983 action can proceed against the individual defendants, CUNY is immune to suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

A state department of corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment from a § 1983 suit seeking either damages or injunctive relief.

Jackson v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections · filed 1991-04-26

We agree with the district court that suit against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, for either injunctive relief or damages, is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

In a § 1983 suit against state officials, the Eleventh Amendment limits monetary relief to claims against officials in their individual capacities.

Dixon v. Margolis · filed 1991-05-16

The Eleventh Amendment limits the monetary claims to those against defendants in their individual capacities only.

Section 1983 damages suits against a state or its agencies or departments are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Darwall v. Michigan Department of Corrections, State of Michigan · filed 1991-05-22

A suit against a state or one of its agencies or departments for monetary damages is barred by the eleventh amendment.

A state education agency is immune from a § 1983 procedural due process claim under the Eleventh Amendment.

Donnie Weil, Et Ux. v. Board of Elementary & Secondary Education · filed 1991-05-28

We endorse as our own the rulings of the two district courts on all of those issues. ... The court found BESE, a state agency, was immune from the procedural due process claim brought under section 1983, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979), and from the substantive due process claim brought under the EHA because that act did not contain unequivocal language abrogating immunity as required by Atascadero v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985).

Section 1983 monetary relief against a state university is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Johnson v. Wefald · filed 1991-06-03

For purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity, KSU is a state agency. Thus, plaintiff’s section 1983 claim, insofar as it seeks monetary relief, and all of his pendent state law claims against KSU are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not overcome a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from an award of retroactive unemployment benefits, even when the benefits would come from segregated funds.

unempl.ins.rep. Cch 22,027 Bonita Paschal v. Sally Jackson, Director of the Illinois Department of Employment Security · filed 1991-07-09

We prefer an approach that disregards the source of state funds. ... The relief claimed by the claimants is barred by the eleventh amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state agency and an official sued only in an official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not consented to suit.

Robert J. Austin, D/B/A Austin Roofing v. State Industrial Insurance System Laury M. Lewis, General Manager · filed 1991-07-15

We therefore hold that SIIS is a state agency entitled to immunity under the eleventh amendment. ... Since Austin sues Lewis only in his official capacity as general manager of SIIS, his claim against Lewis effectively is directed at SIIS itself. ... Lewis therefore enjoys the same eleventh amendment immunity that protects SIIS.

Section 1983 permits prospective relief against a state official, but the Eleventh Amendment bars an order requiring the state to pay past-due Medicaid claims.

Sutphin Pharmacy, Inc. v. Perales · filed 1991-07-19

It should be noted, however, that while this Court cannot order the state to reimburse plaintiffs for past-due Medicaid claims that should have been paid, but were not, it does have the power to grant prospective relief where warranted.

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

Kroll v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, an Illinois Public Corporation · filed 1991-07-22

The Supreme Court, however, long ago dispelled the notion that section 1983 abrogated the states’ eleventh amendment immunity, ... and suits filed under that statute must still pay heed to the eleventh amendment.

Eleventh Amendment immunity can bar a § 1983 damages claim against a state prison official.

Allen L. Fleetwood, Also Known as Allen J. Hyena v. Crawford · filed 1991-07-29

The district court dismissed the action, deciding that it was barred by eleventh amendment immunity pursuant to Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 593 (6th Cir.1989). ... Upon consideration, we affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the complaint for the reasons stated in its order and judgment dated February 25, 1991.

Section 1983 does not permit a due process claim directly against Kansas State University because the University has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Campbell v. Board of Regents of State of Kan. · filed 1991-08-09

Although not addressed by the parties, the court notes that plaintiffs due process claim directly against Kansas State University, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is barred by the eleventh amendment.

State officials sued under § 1983 for acts taken in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages.

Cain v. Dan Bolden, Theodore W. Koehler, Gary Hoffman · filed 1991-09-16

Defendants are entitled to eleventh amendment immunity because the acts complained of were taken in the defendants' official capacity.

A § 1983 suit against a state official seeking only prospective relief for a violation of federal law is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Appalachian Agency for Senior Citizens v. Bland · filed 1991-09-19

Thus, since plaintiffs in this action seek only prospective relief, the eleventh amendment does not apply.

A § 1983 suit against state employees is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment when they were not carrying out state policy and were not acting in their official capacities.

Williams v. Mishra · filed 1991-09-19

It is clear from the record that the defendants were not carrying out state policy at the time of the alleged incidents. Therefore, they were not acting within their official capacity and the eleventh amendment does not bar Williams's suit.

The Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims under § 1983 against state officials acting in their official capacities.

Raheem v. Robert E. Lecureux, R. Mendominee, B. Davis, Officer Moon · filed 1991-10-03

The defendants were clearly acting in their official capacity in this case. See Cowan v. University of Louisville School of Medicine, 900 F.2d 936, 940-941 (6th Cir.1990). Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment bars the damage claims.

A state agency may invoke Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity against § 1983 claims for monetary and injunctive relief.

Barnes v. James Hamilton, Barbara Smith, Greenup County Sheriff's Department, Kentucky State Police, Joh · filed 1991-10-10

The district court's judgment is affirmed, however, as to the Kentucky State Police because a state agency is entitled to assert eleventh amendment sovereign immunity against claims for monetary and injunctive relief.

Section 1983 suits against a state and a state agency are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Libertarian Party v. Marion County Board of Voter Registration · filed 1991-10-11

The State Defendants correctly maintain that suits against the state and the state election board as an agency of the state (which characterization the plaintiffs do not dispute) are barred by the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution.

Under the Eleventh Amendment, state employees sued in their official capacities are immune from damages liability under § 1983.

Fleetwood v. Robert Brown, Jr., Director · filed 1991-11-04

Fleetwood's complaint does not allege that the defendants were sued in their individual capacity, and we must therefore treat the action as one brought against the defendants in their official capacity. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 592 (6th Cir.1989). Under the Eleventh Amendment, state employees are immune from liability for damages when a § 1983 action is brought against them in their official capacity.

In a § 1983 action, the Eleventh Amendment bars an order requiring state officials to pay past Medicaid reimbursement deficiencies from the state treasury.

Rye Psychiatric Hospital Center, Inc. v. Surles · filed 1991-11-07

Since the eleventh amendment prevents the court from ordering defendants to pay any reimbursement deficiencies stemming from prior fiscal years, we concurrently decline to order defendants to complete audits for these preceding fiscal years.

Section 1983 claims for money damages against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent state permission to sue.

Bullock v. Hoof · filed 1991-11-26

The claims against the defendants in their official capacities are the most easily dismissed. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits plaintiffs from suing states for money damages without permission, and a suit against a state official in his official capacity is considered a suit against the state.

State officials sued in their individual capacities under § 1983 may be liable for acts within their official duties; they cannot claim Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because they acted as officials.

Tyrone v. Hardin v. Dennis Straub, Dwayne Sholes and John Doe, 1- 11 Individually and in Their Official Capacities, Join · filed 1992-01-27

Hardin is not required to prove that Straub acted outside the scope of his authority. Rather, all Hardin must prove is that Straub acted in his position as a state official. At that point, Straub can properly advance not the defense of Eleventh Amendment immunity but rather the defense of qualified immunity.

A state governor sued in his official capacity under § 1983 may invoke the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity unless that immunity has been overcome.

Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. State of Ala. · filed 1992-02-20

Because the Governor has available to him the same Eleventh Amendment immunity as the State, the Tribe may sue him in his official capacity under § 1983 only if his state immunity fails in some fashion.

Section 1983 allows declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities and damages against them in their personal capacities.

Toney v. State of Ala. · filed 1992-03-04

To the extent that Toney seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on his §§ 1981 and 1983 claims, the defendant officials may be subject to liability in their official capacities. Toney’s claim for compensatory damages is available only if Toney proves the officials to be liable in their personal capacities.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 suit in federal court against a state social services department that is part of the state.

Glasford v. New York State Department of Social Services · filed 1992-03-23

Plaintiff sues New York State Department of Social Services (“NYSDSS”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, claiming that defendant violated his rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. ... Despite its literal wording (the “Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit ... against one of the United States by Citizens of another State”), the Eleventh Amendment has been interpreted to prohibit a suit in federal court against a state government by a citizen of that state. ... Plaintiff has named as the defendant in this action New York State’s Department of Social Services, which is considered part of the state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 claim brought directly against a state, regardless of the relief sought.

Dempsey v. Massachusetts State · filed 1992-03-31

Second, Dempsey's claims against the only named defendant, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, are jurisdictionally proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment. Massachusetts enjoys sovereign immunity from being sued "directly in its own name regardless of the relief sought."

Section 1983 damages claims against a California school district are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the district is an arm of the state.

Belanger v. Madera Unified School District Board of Trustees of Madera Unified School District Thomas J. Riley, Sch · filed 1992-04-29

An analysis of the five Mitchell factors demonstrates that the school district in this case is a state agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. Although Belanger’s view of certain factors are not without merit, Belanger cannot prevail on the first and most important factor because a judgment against the school district would be satisfied out of state funds. Moreover, under California law, the school district is a state agency that performs central governmental functions. Thus, the school district is protected by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state university is immune from suit under Section 1983 as a state entity.

Winters v. Iowa State University · filed 1992-06-01

As a state entity, the University is immune from suit under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Howlett by and through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, ---, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 2443, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990); Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-71 (1989), and § 1981.

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

Mott v. State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Corrections, Jack R. Duckworth, Warden · filed 1992-06-09

The district court was correct in dismissing the claims against the State of Indiana and the defendants in their official capacities pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state agency and a state official in her official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Jones v. Checkett · filed 1992-06-10

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint against MDSSDMS and Checkett in her official capacity on Eleventh Amendment grounds.

In a § 1983 action against a state official sued only in his official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment bars money damages but permits prospective injunctive relief.

Southeast Kansas Community Action Program Inc. v. Secretary of Agriculture of the United States · filed 1992-06-22

This lawsuit was filed against Stanley C. Grant as Secretary of KDHE in his official capacity only. Consequently, the Eleventh Amendment bars the award of money damages. ... The Amendment does not bar the action altogether, however, as it does allow Suits seeking prospective injunctive relief.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 constitutional claims against a state university president in his official capacity.

Grassinger v. Welty · filed 1992-07-09

The Eleventh Amendment bars assertion of these claims, except under Title VII, against Welty in his official capacity as president of IUP.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity, so an arm of the state is immune from a § 1983 claim in federal court unless the state waives that immunity.

Hattie E. Robinson, Lamar Glover v. Georgia Department of Transportation · filed 1992-07-20

In Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1145, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979), the Court concluded that Congress, in passing § 1983, did not intend to override the immunity guaranteed to the states by the Eleventh Amendment. Thus, Ga. DOT’S Eleventh Amendment immunity has not been overridden by Congress.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity for state officials sued in their official capacities.

Duran v. Gary W. Deland, Jim Gober, Perales, Richardson, Darrell, Muller · filed 1992-07-30

We agree with the district court that all allegations against the defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide a congressional override to the Eleventh Amendment. Therefore, state officials acting in their official capacities are immune from suit.

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

Texas Hospital Ass'n v. National Heritage Insurance · filed 1992-08-04

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity, nor does pendent (“supplemental”) jurisdiction.

A damages claim under § 1983 against a sheriff’s department is barred when the department is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

No. 92-1068 · filed 1992-08-17

The claim for damages against the Department is based on an "indisputably meritless legal theory," Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833, because the Department is entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a sheriff’s department entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Northington v. Jackson · filed 1992-08-17

The claim for damages against the Department is based on an “indisputably meritless legal theory,” ... because the Department is entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity.

Section 1983 claims against state prison employees in their official capacities are treated as claims against the state and barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent a state waiver or valid congressional override.

Haston v. Galetka · filed 1992-09-15

In reviewing the amended complaint, the court first finds that Haston’s allegations against the defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed. Such allegations constitute an action against the State of Utah and are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent waiver by the state or a valid congressional override.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state Eleventh Amendment immunity; a Utah school district may be sued because it is not an arm of the state.

Ambus v. Granite Board of Education · filed 1992-09-24

Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting § 1983. ... There have been two subsequent developments which lead us to conclude that Harris no longer controls, and that we must hold this Utah school district is not entitled to the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state and state officials sued in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Lisa A. Johnson, D.D.S. v. State of California · filed 1992-10-01

Johnson's claims for damages against the state and its officials are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A prison official sued under § 1983 in individual and official capacities is not entitled to blanket Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Fry v. Herman Elleby, Classification Director · filed 1992-10-07

The district court was correct in refusing to adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation in regard to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against a state official in an official capacity despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Scelsa v. City University of New York · filed 1992-11-18

This distinction between CUNY as defendant and between Ann Reynolds as an official state actor, will avail defendants little in the instant controversy. For when prospective injunctive relief is sought, the Eleventh Amendment is no bar to using § 1983 as the vehicle for such relief.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the state is the real party in interest and the requested relief would impose retroactive monetary liability on the state treasury.

Barry v. Fordice · filed 1992-12-03

As a matter of law, the jurisdictional bar of the Eleventh Amendment applies here. ... The defendant officials are joined in their official capacity as collective representatives of the state. ... Clearly, the State of Mississippi is the real substantial party in interest, as any relief sought by the plaintiffs would ultimately operate against the state treasury.

Section 1983 claims against a state in federal court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Bennett v. Muriel April Bennett, and State of Nevada · filed 1992-12-03

Finally, the eleventh amendment bars a suit against a state in federal court.

Section 1983 claims for monetary relief against a state agency or state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Durrani v. Valdosta Technical Institute · filed 1992-12-28

Therefore, VTI and defendants Bridges and Pruitt, in their official capacities and to the extent plaintiff seeks monetary relief, are immune from plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 actions against a state and state officials acting in their official capacity.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota · filed 1993-01-08

This court agrees with the holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state and state officials acting in their official capacity.

Section 1983 claims against a state and its agencies cannot be decided in federal court because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Shelton v. State of Oklahoma Department of Corrections · filed 1993-01-27

If it is a § 1983 case the federal court may not decide the case as it is against the state and one of its agencies.

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

McManama v. State of Oregon · filed 1993-01-29

In addition, Congress did not abrogate states' eleventh amendment immunity with the passage of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a district attorney’s office for prosecution decisions made as a state representative because the Eleventh Amendment shields it.

Feerick v. Sudolnik · filed 1993-02-17

The causes of action against defendants Morgenthau and the DAO arise from alleged decisions that were inextricably tied to the specific decision to prosecute. When the DAO makes such decisions, it is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and thus is representing the state, not the county. ... Thus, the 11th Amendment protects the DAO from Section 1983 liability while it acts as a state representative.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state prisoner review board or its members in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Taylor v. Paul J. Klincar, Mike Krolikiewicz and Illinois Prisoner Review Board · filed 1993-03-08

Insofar as Taylor seeks damages from the Board or its members in their official capacities, his suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages suits against defendants entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Rich v. Robert Brown, Jr. · filed 1993-03-22

Nonetheless, we note that the defendants are not subject to suit for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against a state correctional institution in federal court are barred by the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Hamilton-Smith v. Western New Mexico Correctional Facility, Education Department · filed 1993-03-30

Mr. Hamilton-Smith, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice. ... The former may well be true, but the latter claim will not be successful in this case because the State is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not waive states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, so an arm of the state is immune from a claim under it.

Silva v. Universidad De Puerto Rico · filed 1993-05-03

Unlike Title VII, sections 1981 and 1983 do not contain Congressional waivers of states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Harbold v. State of Indiana Health Professions Bureau Indiana State Board of Chiropractic Examiners · filed 1993-05-03

Indiana has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Meadows v. Indiana, 854 F.2d 1068, 1069-70 (7th Cir.1988), and it is well-settled that Congress did not override the sovereign immunity of the states by enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A state grievance committee functioning as an arm of the court has Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit.

Monroe v. Horwitch · filed 1993-05-13

The Eleventh Amendment bars direct private suits against the state or its agencies unless the state has waived its immunity. ... In fulfilling its responsibility to regulate the practice of law in Connecticut, the SGC functions as “an arm of the court.” ... Accordingly, the SGC enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity.

In a § 1983 action, the Eleventh Amendment shields a state from suit in federal court.

Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. California Div. of Safety of Dams, a Div. of the California Dept. of Water Resources · filed 1993-05-17

We affirm the order dismissing the State of California, on the ground that the Eleventh Amendment shields California from suit in federal court.

A state agency is immune under the Eleventh Amendment from a damages claim under § 1983.

Gorczakoski v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 1993-05-18

And to the extent plaintiff seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on account of (1) defendant's allegedly improper processing of her claim or (2) its reaction to her office visit in February 1992, it is clear that defendant is immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Thomas v. Brown · filed 1993-05-19

The plaintiff has included several state defendants in his complaint and those defendants in their official capacities are entitled to immunity for claims for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Utah school districts are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 suits in federal court.

Ambus v. Granite Board of Education · filed 1993-06-07

Therefore they are not entitled to immunity from § 1983 suits in federal court.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and Municipal Court as state entities despite their predominantly local funding.

Robinson v. Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County · filed 1993-06-30

In sum, defendant courts, while still hybrids in fact, are state entities in law. ... Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Eleventh Amendment immunity will be granted.

State officials sued for damages under § 1983 in their official capacities may invoke the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Blum v. Schlegel · filed 1993-07-01

However, as stated above, to the extent that plaintiffs claims are against defendants in their professional capacities, they may assert the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state university that is an arm of the state, and claims for retrospective relief against its officials in their official capacities, are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

MacKey v. Cleveland State University · filed 1993-07-20

Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against Cleveland State University seeking damages are dismissed since CSU is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. Likewise, the § 1983 claims for retrospective relief against the Trustees, Flower, Muczyk and Konstantinos in their official capacities are dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 damages claims against arms of the state and state officers in their official capacities, but does not bar claims against officers in their individual capacities.

King v. Mississippi Highway Patrol · filed 1993-07-26

In sum, the above analysis leads to the conclusion that MHP is an alter ego of the State of Mississippi and is therefore entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... For these same reasons, dismissal of the federal and state claims against Officer Jackson in his official capacity is also required. ... However, though Officer Jackson is entitled to the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment as to plaintiffs official capacity claims, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar plaintiffs claims against him in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity, barring claims against state agencies and damages claims against state officials in their official capacities.

Werthman v. ILLINOIS DMH/DD · filed 1993-08-24

Because Congress failed to say explicitly, when it enacted § 1983, that state governments could be proper defendants under that statute, § 1983 claims are not permitted against state governments. Id. at 345, 99 S.Ct. at 1147. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against DMH/DD and her § 1983 claims for damages against Arnold and Pavkovic in their official capacities are therefore dismissed.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, which bars suits against state agencies and official-capacity damages claims but permits official-capacity injunctive relief and personal-capacity damages claims.

Werthman v. Illinois Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities · filed 1993-08-24

All § 1983, § 1985 and state law claims against DMH/DD and Arnold and Pavkovic in their official capacities are dismissed, except for the § 1983 and § 1985 claims for injunctive relief against Arnold and Pavkovic, which survive. The § 1983 and § 1985 claims for money damages against Arnold and Pavkovic in their individual capacities also survive.

California school districts are immune from section 1983 liability as arms of the state, but the Eleventh Amendment does not bar claims against school officials sued in their individual capacities.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Petaluma City School District · filed 1993-08-30

The motion to dismiss the section 1983 claim against the school districts is GRANTED (with prejudice) because they are immune under the Eleventh Amendment. The motion to dismiss the section 1983 claim against Homrighouse and Cleclak on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity is DENIED because they have been sued in their individual capacities.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 monetary judgments against states and their agencies when payment would come from the state treasury, but does not bar prospective injunctive relief.

Roos v. Smith · filed 1993-09-27

The Eleventh Amendment bars judgments under § 1983 against the state, or agencies or instrumentalities of the state, where such judgments would be paid out of the state treasury. ... However, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar claims for prospective injunctive relief under § 1983.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state university that is an arm of the state and its employees in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, while employees sued individually are persons under the statute and lack that immunity.

Hutsell v. Sayre · filed 1993-09-29

In summation, we conclude that a suit against the UK Board of Trustees and its employees in their official capacity is fairly characterized as a suit against the “state” for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... This leaves plaintiffs claim against the officers in their individual and personal capacities, for which the Eleventh Amendment provides no immunity. ... Moreover, because they are sued in their individual capacities, defendants are considered “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity barring federal suits against state entities absent state consent or waiver.

Thomas v. Devries · filed 1993-10-19

Since the state has not consented or waived immunity, and since Georgia College and the Regents of the University System are state entities to which Stevens applies, a § 1983 action against these defendants may not be entertained in federal court.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their individual capacities for actions taken under color of state law, while the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state entities.

Hall v. California Department of Corrections · filed 1993-10-19

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 actions against state entities and state officials sued in their official capacities. ... However, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state officials sued in their individual capacities for actions taken under color of state law. ... Accordingly, Defendant CDC is DISMISSED as a Defendant in this action. Defendants Myers, Basso, Marsh, and Tristan remain proper Defendants in the action as they are sued individually for actions taken under color of state law.

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

In Re Secretary Of The Department Of Crime Control And Public Safety · filed 1993-10-26

While Congress may abrogate a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity by express statutory language, see Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223, 109 S.Ct. 2397, 105 L.Ed.2d 181 (1989), it has long been settled that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is the ultimate basis for Barfield's claim here, does not effect such an abrogation.

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

Barfield v. Blackwood · filed 1993-10-26

While Congress may abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity by express statutory language, ... it has long been settled that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is the ultimate basis for Bar-field’s claim here, does not effect such an abrogation.

Section 1983 permits private federal suits against states involving constitutionally protected property interests under the Fourteenth Amendment despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

McMurtray v. Holladay · filed 1993-12-29

The portion of the appellants' suit regarding the status of their property interest and whether they were denied legislative due process is not similarly barred because Congress has the power with respect to the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 5; Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 451- 56, 96 S. Ct. 2666, 2669-71 (1976). Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction to hear private suits against states involving constitutionally protected property interests under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Clemes v. Del Norte County Unified School District · filed 1994-01-25

Mr. Ciernes is correct in asserting that Congress may waive Eleventh Amendment immunity, but is incorrect in asserting that it has done so with respect to suits under section 1983.

A § 1983 suit against a state supreme court itself is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Landers Seed Company, Incorporated v. Champaign National Bank · filed 1994-02-04

The Eleventh Amendment bars federal jurisdiction here since the Illinois Supreme Court itself is the named defendant and not the individual members of that court.

Section 1983 plaintiffs cannot recover damages from defendants protected by the Eleventh Amendment, but may obtain prospective relief.

Tipton v. University Of Hawaii · filed 1994-02-07

While he requests compensatory and punitive damages, neither the original nor the proposed amended complaint names a defendant from whom damages can be recovered notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment; Tipton can only obtain prospective relief.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 actions against a state.

Becker v. State of California, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Bar Association · filed 1994-02-10

As to defendant State of California, the Eleventh Amendment bars Sec. 1983 actions against the state.

Section 1983 claims for declaratory relief against state officials are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Gill v. Stella · filed 1994-03-05

Moreover, a claim for declaratory relief under section 1983 is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission § 1983 claim is not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the Commission is not an arm of the Commonwealth.

Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission · filed 1994-03-09

We therefore conclude that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is not, as a matter of federal law, a part of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that it is not immune from this lawsuit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity suit against state officials for reinstatement because that remedy is prospective injunctive relief outside Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Sutton v. Evans · filed 1994-03-14

In the instant action, Holland and Qualls are suing state officials in their official capacity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement, as well as for attorneys’ fees. ... The Court finds, moreover, that reinstatement is a form of prospective injunctive relief which is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for damages claims against state agencies or state officials acting in their official capacities.

Scott v. California State Lotto · filed 1994-03-18

The absolute immunity provided to state agencies and officials under that amendment is not limited or abrogated by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

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

Meneweather v. Eddie Ylst, Director of California Department of Corrections · filed 1994-03-22

We consider only his requests for injunctive relief, however, because his claim for monetary damages is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 claim for prospective injunctive relief against a state is barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the state alone is named, but a pro se plaintiff must have an opportunity to amend to name state officials in their official capacities.

Richfield v. State of California · filed 1994-03-24

Although the Eleventh Amendment does not bar claims for prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in their official capacities, Eu, 979 F.2d at 704, the only named defendant in Richfield's complaint is the State of California. Thus, Richfield's claims for injunctive relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See id. The district court erred, however, by failing to provide Richfield with an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure this deficiency. See Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448.

A county sheriff sued in an official capacity under § 1983 is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for alleged failures in maintaining warrant records.

Jackson v. Doria · filed 1994-03-25

As such, he is generally not entitled to Eleventh Amendment protection. ... Accordingly, we reject Doria’s claim that the Eleventh Amendment shields him from suit.

A section 1983 damages claim against the State Bar of Texas is barred by eleventh amendment immunity.

Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas · filed 1994-04-07

The section 1983 suit for damages also necessarily founders on eleventh amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims for retroactive monetary relief against an unconsenting state agency are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Etemad v. State of California Department of Water Resources Control Board · filed 1994-04-11

Because the state of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and Etemad seeks a retroactive award, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Etemad's causes of action under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, 202.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state bar that is an arm of the state are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Lee v. State Bar of California · filed 1994-04-21

Monte Lee appeals pro se the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of Lee's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for damages against the State Bar of California. ... Nevertheless, because Lee's claims against the State Bar are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the district court properly dismissed his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a section 1983 damages suit against a state bar.

Liedtke v. The State Bar of Texas · filed 1994-05-03

The section 1983 suit for damages also necessarily founders on eleventh amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit an official-capacity suit when the requested relief would operate against the state by requiring it to relinquish its claimed property interest.

John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Mauro · filed 1994-05-27

Despite its contention that its § 1983 suit is only for declaratory and prospective injunctive relief against Mauro in his official capacity, the relief sought by the Foundation—no matter how its request for relief is phrased—would operate against the State. Hence, the State of Texas, not Mauro, is the real, substantial party in interest. We therefore conclude that the Foundation's § 1983 claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the district court did not err in determining that the court did not have the power to entertain the claim.

Section 1983 permits monetary damages claims against state officers in their individual capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Cerrato v. San Francisco Community College District · filed 1994-06-16

Accordingly, we may hear Cerrato’s section 1983 claim to the extent that he asks for monetary damages against the other defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits prospective relief against state officials for continued implementation of an unconstitutional statutory scheme, even if some affected persons have already received benefits under it.

Lynch v. Public School Retirement System Of Missouri · filed 1994-06-20

The district court's second reason was that the Eleventh Amendment bars relief because plaintiffs seek retroactive rather than prospective relief. See Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 106 S.Ct. 423, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985). We disagree. If the statutory scheme is in fact unconstitutional, the continued implementation of such a scheme constitutes an ongoing violation of federal law, regardless of whether some or all persons similarly situated to plaintiffs have already received their refunds.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for past damages against a state university in federal court because the Eleventh Amendment bars that claim.

Halikas v. University of Minnesota · filed 1994-07-08

A federal court cannot award past damages against the University, because it is a state institution.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against protected defendants.

Jones v. Nelson · filed 1994-08-05

In addition to the above, plaintiffs claim for damages is totally barred by defendants’ Eleventh Amendment immunity and the court so finds.

Indiana school corporations are not arms of the state and are not immune from suit under § 1983.

Board of Trustees Hamilton v. Landry · filed 1994-08-11

Based on our reexamination of Indiana law in light of the Seventh Cireuit's interpretation of Mit. Healthy, we hold that an Indiana school corporation is not an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes and, therefore, is not immune from suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state that has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity when the plaintiff seeks a retroactive award.

Etemad v. State of California, Department of Toxic Substance Control (Dtsc) · filed 1994-09-02

Because the state of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and Etemad seeks a retroactive award, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Etemad's causes of action under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, 202.

A sheriff sued under § 1983 for decisions about a county-designed and county-supervised warrant-tracking system is not acting as the state for Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Keith Ruehman and Alan Miller v. Michael Sheahan, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois · filed 1994-09-06

It follows that in designing and implementing spwa the Sheriff is not acting as the State of Illinois.

Section 1983 claims against a state and state entities that share its Eleventh Amendment immunity are barred in federal court.

Van Pilsum v. Iowa State University of Science & Technology · filed 1994-09-12

Plaintiffs claims under Iowa Code chapter 216 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants State of Iowa, the Iowa State Board of Regents and I.S.U. are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and will be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from claims for retroactive monetary relief.

Seeney v. Kavitski · filed 1994-10-12

Moreover, courts have consistently held that Congress did not intend to override state immunity when it passed § 1983. ... Accordingly, plaintiffs claims under § 1983 for retroactive relief against the Commonwealth defendants are dismissed.

Section 1983 civil rights claims against a state are barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the state has not consented to suit.

Barber v. State of Hawai'i · filed 1994-11-30

The Preservation Society's civil rights claims against the State of Hawaii were also barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Hawaii has not consented to be sued.

Section 1983 damages claims against CUNY are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Minetos v. City University of New York · filed 1995-02-10

Consequently, the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983 damages claims against CUNY fail because they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state instrumentality is immune from a Section 1983 suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment unless the state waives its immunity.

Carter v. State Insurance Fund · filed 1995-02-21

Taken together, the above factors lead to one conclusion, that the State Insurance Fund is an instrumentality of the state of Oklahoma and cloaked with Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a state or its agencies in federal court are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity absent a state waiver, whether the plaintiff seeks damages or injunctive relief.

Seater v. California State University, Fullerton State of California · filed 1995-02-22

Moreover, agencies of the state, such as California state colleges and universities, are similarly immune from private damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1089 (1989). Because California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, the district court properly found that the defendants were immune from suit on Seater's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state agency’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from a damages suit.

Jewell Kissinger Gladys Kissinger v. Arkansas State Highway Commission · filed 1995-02-28

Because the Kissingers have not shown that either of the exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment are applicable, their suit is barred. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 (1974) (state's waiver of immunity must be "express" waiver); Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64, 66 (1989) (state is not a "person" within meaning of section 1983; section 1983 did not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity).

A Florida community college is an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 suit.

Perez v. City of Key West · filed 1995-02-28

The allegations presently before the Court are Counts I and II of the complaint, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and a violation of the First Amendment claim, all state pendant claims having previously been dismissed. ... Examination of the statues related to the community college system, including Pasco Community, convinces this Court that Eleventh Amendment immunity should adhere to the community colleges. ... The finding that the defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity requires that the Court dismiss Pasco Hernando from this suit and renders moot the remaining issues raised by the motion for summary judgment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state corrections department and its treatment center are immune from suit under the section.

Mayes v. Department of Corrections, Div. of Classification and Treatment · filed 1995-03-20

While dismissal was appropriate as to the Department of Corrections and the Center, see Barnes v. Missouri, 960 F.2d 63, 65 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (Sec. 1983 not intended to abrogate state's Eleventh Amendment immunity), we believe the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Mayes's complaint against the individual employees of the Center, see Cokeley v. Endell, 27 F.3d 331, 332 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for Sec. 1915(d) dismissal).

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit because it is not an arm of Pennsylvania.

Christy v. PA Turnpike Comm · filed 1995-03-27

Since the most important factor, funding, weighs heavily against the Commission and only one factor weighs, even slightly, in favor of the Commission, the balance is clearly struck against a finding that the Commission enjoys sovereign immunity as an arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Consequently, we find that the Commission is subject to suit in federal court.

Municipal officials enforcing state policy are shielded by the Eleventh Amendment from monetary damages in a § 1983 action, but remain subject to declaratory and injunctive relief.

McLaughlin v. City of Canton, Miss. · filed 1995-03-31

So, while the Eleventh Amendment shields the municipal defendants from liability for monetary damages, these defendants remain subject to the declaratory and injunctive powers of the court for the reasons outlined in III.C.l.

A state department of corrections is immune from a Section 1983 suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Erdman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections · filed 1995-04-05

The MDOC is absolutely immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 monetary damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not waived it.

Cross v. Alabama, State Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation · filed 1995-04-06

The Eleventh Amendment bars appellees’ section 1983 lawsuit for monetary damages against Horsley, Poundstone, and Stricklin in their official capacities.

Section 1983 damages claims against county sheriffs and deputies in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when they execute state court eviction orders as state officials.

Whitney v. Michael Sheahan, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois · filed 1995-04-26

Appellant's claim against the Sheriff is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... This court has specifically held that sheriffs and their deputies act as state officials and are immune from suit when executing state court orders of eviction.

Section 1983 permits a suit challenging a state governor’s unconstitutional conduct in his official capacity despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Haley v. Pataki · filed 1995-05-03

The court first notes that although not mentioned in the motion papers, this suit can be nothing other than an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the court will entertain it as such. ... Because this action clearly challenges the constitutionality of the Governor’s actions, or inactions as the case may be, it is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state-created turnpike commission that is not an arm of the state lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit in federal court.

Christy v. PA Turnpike · filed 1995-05-23

Because we conclude that the Commission is not an arm or alter ego of Pennsylvania we will affirm the district court's finding that the Commission does not enjoy Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

State agencies are presumptively immune from § 1983 damages actions unless Congress abrogates their Eleventh Amendment immunity or the state expressly waives it.

Burrell v. Tennessee Department of Human Services, Tipton County Board of Education, Sharon Sanders, Lani Simmons · filed 1995-05-23

A state agency is presumptively immune from Sec. 1983 damages actions unless Congress abrogates, or the State expressly waives, immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal suits against state agencies.

Timmons v. NY STATE DEPT. OF CORR. SERVICES · filed 1995-05-25

Nor did Congress abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits against state agencies.

Timmons v. New York State Department of Correctional Services · filed 1995-05-25

Nor did Congress abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 suit requires a particularized inquiry into a state instrumentality’s autonomy and whether a judgment would be paid from state funds.

Hadley v. North Arkansas Community Technical College · filed 1995-06-05

North Arkansas Community Technical College (NACTC) appeals from the district court's order denying its claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity in a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 suit brought against it. ... The key inquiry is whether a judgment against the institution must be paid from state funds, or whether it can be paid from nonstate sources under its discretionary control.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state department of corrections protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Billman v. Indiana Department of Corrections · filed 1995-06-05

The judgment is affirmed insofar as it dismissed as a defendant the Department of Corrections, which as we said is immune.

Section 1983 claims for retrospective relief against county officials are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when those officials act as arms of the state.

Marbley v. Bane · filed 1995-06-15

Given the counties’ lack of policy-making discretion and the liability of the state for all county expenditures, the county defendants act as arms of the state in administering HEAP, and are therefore entitled to the same protection that the Eleventh Amendment affords to the state.

A state turnpike commission that is not an arm of the state cannot claim Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit in federal court.

Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission · filed 1995-07-13

Christy then sued the Commission and its individual commissioners and personnel committee members pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983 and 1985, claiming that he was not promoted due to political bias against him. ... Since the most important factor, funding, weighs heavily against the Commission and only one factor weighs, even slightly, in favor of the Commission, the balance is clearly struck against a finding that the Commission enjoys sovereign immunity as an arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Consequently, we find that the Commission is subject to suit in federal court.

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

Wrenn v. Freeman · filed 1995-07-14

As it is a well-rooted principle of law that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits for monetary damages against state actors in their official capacities, ... plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief against both defendants in their official capacity are DISMISSED.

State correctional officers sued in their official capacities are immune from § 1983 claims for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment.

Searcy v. Singletary · filed 1995-07-27

Defendants in the present case are, or were, employees of the Department of Corrections. Therefore, they enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for damages in their official capacity.

An amendment specifying that defendants are sued in their individual capacities removes official-capacity immunity as a basis for summary judgment on a Section 1983 damages claim.

Tracy v. Parker · filed 1995-07-28

Therefore, the claim for monetary relief failed because defendants were assumed to be named in their official capacities and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Tracy then moved to amend his complaint to clarify that he was suing the defendants in their individual capacities. ... Upon review, we conclude that the district court erred in adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment to defendants on the claim for monetary damages when the basis for that recommendation had been negated by the amendment of the complaint.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state agency and state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Robertson v. ALA. DEPT. OF ECON. & COMM. AFFAIRS · filed 1995-07-31

Thus, in this case, Eleventh amendment damage immunity extends to ADECA and the named defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state agency and state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Robertson v. Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs · filed 1995-07-31

Thus, in this case, Eleventh amendment damage immunity extends to ADECA and the named defendants in their official capacities.

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

Flores v. Long · filed 1995-08-17

Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A city sued under § 1983 is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from the claim.

Snyder v. Murray City Corp. · filed 1995-09-13

In light of the Hess case, Murray City Corporation is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from plaintiffs § 1983 claims.