42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of constitutional rights by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Staelens v. Yake · filed 1977-05-06

Having found that plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action under § 1983 in that it does not show that defendants acted under color of state law to deprive them of any constitutional rights, we dismiss the complaint against defendants Michael R. Morrison, Ronald F. Yake, L. J. Tisovec and St. Anthony Hospital of Rockford for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a constitutional right, privilege, or immunity.

Jones v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Ass'n · filed 1977-08-31

Her section 1983 claim requires the denial of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution, in this case the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1983 does not provide relief when a physician's denial of public-hospital staff privileges under a justified exclusive contract abridges no constitutional or federal right.

Capili v. Shott · filed 1978-05-05

None of the plaintiff’s rights secured under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were abridged by the defendants, or any of them, as a result of the existence of the exclusive contract described in the evidence.

Section 1983 requires state-action conduct that deprives a person of federal constitutional or statutory rights, and an equal-protection claim requires more than an isolated negligent failure to afford constitutional rights.

Taylor v. Grindstaff · filed 1978-05-08

In order to be actionable under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a denial of equal protection, more than such an isolated incident of negligent failure to afford a citizen his constitutional rights must have been involved.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws, and a state official’s tortious conduct alone does not establish a federal claim.

Ruffin v. Beal · filed 1978-05-10

A review of these claims, however, shows that plaintiffs assert no deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws. Such an assertion is prerequisite to recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... But tortious conduct in itself, is not sufficient to state a cause of action under Section 1983. The fact that a tort may have been committed by state officials does not mean that a federal right has been invaded.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove that at least one defendant acted under color of state law and actually subjected the plaintiff to a deprivation of constitutional rights.

Herrmann v. Moore · filed 1978-05-10

It is well-settled that in order to establish a claim based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must prove that at least one of the defendants acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that defendants acted under color of state law or authority and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right, privilege, or immunity.

Rankin v. Howard · filed 1978-07-07

It is well recognized that in order to frame a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege facts which show that defendants acted under color of state law or authority and have deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 imposes liability when a person acting under color of state law deprives another person of a federally protected right.

Taylor v. Mitzel · filed 1978-07-10

Section 1983 provides liability where any person, under the color of any state law, deprives another person of any federally protected right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege state action that deprives the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Schachter v. Whalen · filed 1978-07-19

Of course, in order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs must allege state action that deprives them of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law while acting under color of state law.

Rodgers v. Tolson · filed 1978-08-17

There are two essential elements of a § 1983 claim. First, the plaintiff must show that the defendant deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and second, that the defendant acted under color of state law. ... In sum, accepting the truth of the Rodgers' allegations as we must at this stage of the proceedings we conclude that they have sufficiently alleged a cause of action under § 1983 for violations of the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment.

Section 1983 requires conduct by a person acting under color of state law and a deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Lee v. Derryberry · filed 1978-08-22

There are two essential elements to stating a claim under § 1983: (1) the conduct complained of was by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct complained of deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires factual allegations supporting the asserted constitutional violation; broad and conclusory statements alone are insufficient to state a claim.

Johnson v. Teasdale · filed 1978-09-19

Initially, it is established beyond cavil in this Circuit that broad and conclusory statements unsupported by factual allegations are insufficient to support a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege acts that deprived him of a constitutional or federal statutory right, privilege, or immunity.

Tuggle v. Evans · filed 1978-10-20

As previously stated, in order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the plaintiff must allege at least some acts which have deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action when acts deprive a plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Holder v. Claar · filed 1978-10-27

In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the plaintiff must allege at least some acts which have deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of federally protected rights under color of state law, and private parties may satisfy the state-action requirement through joint activity or conspiracy with state agents.

Yeamans v. Snook · filed 1979-01-16

Thus, the establishment of a 1983 claim hinges on two necessary elements: (1) deprivation of federally protected rights (2) under color of state law. The first element is handily satisfied by plaintiff’s allegation that her arrest and the proceedings which followed were the result of discrimination based on race in violation of her equal protection rights. The requirement that such a violation be under color of state law is more troublesome. ... Snook and McCants, in objecting to plaintiff’s claim, contend that actions by private parties are not under color of state law. That shot, however, goes quite wide of the mark for, “(t)o act ‘under color’ of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willing participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.” United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794 (1966). Plaintiff alleges that a conspiracy existed among Snook, McCants, their employee Ms. Van Eyten, and the police which by purpose and effect deprived her of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Accordingly, plaintiff “will have made out a violation of her fourteenth amendment rights and will be entitled to relief under § 1983” if she can prove that Snook and McCants, or their employees in the course of their employment, in conjunction with the Virgin Islands police “somehow reached an understanding” to maliciously prosecute and otherwise deprive plaintiff of her federally protected rights.

Section 1983 imposes liability on a person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of rights secured by the Constitution and laws.

Coyle v. Spigner · filed 1979-04-26

The statutes provide that the action must be under “color of law”, and in order to show the accused (usually a defendant in a 1983 civil action) is acting under color of a statute for purposes of the application of this section, it is essential that she or he act with the knowledge of and pursuant to the statute, or authority which colors his action. ... To prove a claim under this section, a plaintiff must prove by the preponderance of evidence that he suffered deprivation of federally protected rights, privileges or immunities guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States. ... A private person, generally, cannot be held liable under the provisions of this section unless his wrongful action was done under color of state law or state authority.

A § 1983 complaint must allege a federally protected right and sufficient facts indicating that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of that right to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Blake v. Hall · filed 1979-05-02

With respect to § 1983 complaints, the Court of Appeals for this Circuit has determined that two criteria must be fulfilled for a complaint to withstand a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff must allege: (1) that a federally protected right[s] is [are] in issue; and (2) sufficient facts to indicate that the rights in question have been deprived "by the defendant.

Section 1983 requires proof that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law while acting under color of state law.

Coffy v. Multi-County Narcotics Bureau · filed 1979-06-19

To establish a right to relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove at least two elements: (1) that he has been deprived of a right "secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States; and (2) that the defendant deprived him of this right while acting under color of law.

Section 1983 does not provide relief without a deprivation of constitutional rights, even when the defendant is assumed to have acted under color of state law.

Rhodes v. Louis D. Laurino, Queens County Surrogate, and Dorothy M. Dooley, Director, Adoption Department, New · filed 1979-06-22

Nevertheless we affirm the dismissal of the complaint against Dooley. Even assuming that Dooley was acting under color of state law by virtue of § 372, appellant has not made any showing that Dooley deprived him of his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 requires proof that a defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federal right under color of state law.

Foreman v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1979-06-28

The terms of § 1983 make plain two elements that are necessary for recovery. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has deprived him of a right secured by the “Constitution and laws” of the United States. Second, the plaintiff must show that the defendant deprived him of this constitutional right “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.” This second element requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant acted “under color of law.”

Section 1983 requires both a deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action under color of state law; an arrest without probable cause may support a Section 1983 action.

Konczak v. Tyrrell · filed 1979-08-20

In order to recover under Section 1983, the plaintiff must establish both deprivation of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution and action by the defendant under the color of state law. ... An individual who is arrested without probable cause may have grounds for an action under Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law that deprives a person of a federally protected constitutional right; violations of state-law extradition safeguards alone are not actionable under it.

Robinson v. Vaclavik · filed 1979-09-06

In order for plaintiff to maintain a civil rights action under Section 1983, he must show that the conduct complained of (1) was engaged in under color of -state law, and (2) resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights. ... But since the safeguards derive from state rather than federal laws, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide a remedy for their breach.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Hayes v. Cuyler · filed 1979-08-27

(1) [T]he conduct complained of must have been done by some person acting under color of law; and (2) such conduct must have subjected the complainant to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 permits a prisoner to sue state prison officials for constitutional violations, including certain allegations of substandard medical care and unwarranted force.

Sims v. Zolango · filed 1979-10-17

Certain of these allegations, if credited, and if viewed apart from Sims’ admitted acts of provocation, state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 damages recovery requires a plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, a deprivation of a constitutional right and that the deprivation proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.

Rogers v. Okin · filed 1979-10-29

In order to recover under § 1983, each of the named plaintiffs must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, a deprivation of at least one of these constitutionally protected rights, and that such deprivation was the proximate cause of injury to that plaintiff.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a cognizable liberty or property interest; without one, a court need not reach the challenged procedures.

Jackson v. Reese · filed 1979-12-10

The threshold question under § 1983 is whether the complainant has been deprived of a cognizable liberty or property interest. ... Since appellant has not shown a deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest, this Court need not address whether the Georgia Parole Board’s procedures comport with due process.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution.

Dolan v. Golla · filed 1979-12-13

For Plaintiff to succeed in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must establish two elements: (1) Defendants Golla and Travelpiece acted under color of state law and (2) Defendants Golla and Travelpiece deprived him of a right or rights secured by the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 requires an allegation that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a constitutionally protected right.

Worthon v. Denis Dowhen and Michael Broos · filed 1996-03-25

Although racial slurs are unprofessional and deplorable, they do not constitute a deprivation of constitutionally protected rights, Patton v. Przybylski, 822 F.2d 697, 700 (7th Cir.1987); McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 434 (8th Cir.1993), and an allegation of such a deprivation is an essential element of a § 1983 action.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a right secured by federal law; prison officials acting under color of state law satisfy the first requirement.

Hamilton v. Schriro · filed 1996-04-01

As with any section 1983 action, we must determine: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Because the prison officials were acting under color of state law, the first requirement of this two-part test is satisfied.

Section 1983 requires a person acting under color of state law to deprive a claimant of a constitutional or federal right.

Baldwin v. Board of Education · filed 1996-06-07

There is no dispute regarding the suitability of Baldwin’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The basic elements of a § 1983 action entail a “person” acting “under color of” state law to deprive the claimant of a constitutional or federal right. Baldwin’s claims satisfy these elements.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Mann Ex Rel. Parent v. Meachem · filed 1996-06-19

To state a valid civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that a person acting under color of state law deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires state action and deprivation of a right secured by federal law; state officials acting in their official capacities satisfy the state-action element.

Lillard v. Burson · filed 1996-07-12

Two jurisdictional elements must be present for an action alleging deprivation of Civil Rights under that Section 1983. First, there must be a showing of state action, and second there must be a showing that the defendants have deprived the plaintiff of some right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Concededly, the element of state action is satisfied, as all of the defendants, officials of the State of Tennessee were acting in their official capacities.

A Section 1983 complaint must allege that defendants acting under color of law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Lee v. Western Reserve Psychiatric Habilitation Center and David A. Sorensen · filed 1984-11-06

In order to state a cause of action under § 1983 the plaintiff must allege that the defendants, acting under color of law, deprived him of some right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Conclusory allegations of unconstitutional motivation and conduct, without more, are insufficient to invoke § 1983 jurisdiction.

Hirrill v. Merriweather · filed 1980-01-16

From a consideration of the prayer of Count II, it is evident that what the plaintiff is asking us to do is to require the district court to award him the disability pension that the local administrative agency refused to award him and in that regard to vest 42 U.S.C. § 1983 jurisdiction in the district court by conclusory allegations of unconstitutional motivation and conduct on the part of the Pension Board. Those allegations are not in themselves sufficient for plaintiff’s purpose.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for deprivation of a constitutional or federal right under color of state law, requiring an alleged deprivation and state action.

Savina v. Gebhart · filed 1980-02-26

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, two elements must be pleaded: (1) the plaintiff must allege deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and (2) the alleged deprivation must be under color of state law. ... This circuit has held that local governments are liable under § 1983 when they cause their employees to violate the constitutional rights of others “under color of some official policy.” ... The determination of the nature of Mr. Savina’s activities and whether they are constitutionally protected are matters retained for the jury. Similarly, the determination of whether the plaintiff’s discharge was privileged is also a jury matter. Accordingly, summary judgment for the defendants is inappropriate.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show both a deprivation of a constitutional or federal right and that the defendants acted under color of law.

Tomas Menchaca and Wife, Irma Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corporation · filed 1980-03-07

In order for plaintiffs to maintain this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 there are two essential elements which they must show. First, that defendants have deprived them of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States; second, that this deprivation has occurred while the defendants were acting under color of law.

Section 1983 provides a claim when a person acting under color of local law deprives a citizen of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the federal Constitution and laws.

McNeil v. McDonough · filed 1980-03-20

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the issue is whether the claimant, as a citizen of the United States, has been subjected under color of local law to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the federal Constitution and laws.

Section 1983 requires proof that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law and acted under color of state law.

Loewen v. Turnipseed · filed 1980-04-02

The prerequisites to liability under § 1983 are twofold: (1) The plaintiff must prove that the defendant deprived him of his rights secured by either the Constitution or the laws of the United States; and (2) the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 permits a cause of action for tortious conduct under state law when the conduct is undertaken under color of state law and deprives a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal laws.

Phillips v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency · filed 1980-05-28

Conduct which is tortious under state law can give rise to a cause of action under Section 1983 when it is undertaken under color of state law, and when it results in a deprivation of any rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action when the defendant acted under color of state law and the plaintiff suffered a specific constitutional-right violation beyond a mere tort.

Davis v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections · filed 1980-08-21

A claim is cognizable under § 1983 upon appropriate allegations that the defendant was acting under color of state law, and further that there is a demonstrated violation of a specific constitutional right guaranteed to the plaintiff aside from a mere tort.

Section 1983 requires both a deprivation of a federal constitutional or legal right and an abuse of government power sufficiently serious to elevate an ordinary tort to a constitutional violation.

Mrs. Jimmie Lue Williams v. Douglas E. Kelley and Floyd Carlton McIntyre · filed 1980-08-22

Section 1983 plaintiffs must prove both (1) deprivation of a federal constitutional or legal right, ... which (2) resulted from “the sort of abuse of government power that is necessary to raise an ordinary tort by a government agent to the stature of a violation of the Constitution.” ... This latter element renders federal rights protection far less extensive than that afforded by the common law of battery and negligence. ... In the circumstances, however, their conduct simply did not constitute “the sort of abuse of government power” that is cognizable under § 1983: ... We hold only that, in dealing with Williams, defendants did not act unconstitutionally.

Section 1983 requires a pleading to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right, and mere defamation alone does not state a claim under the statute.

Clark v. Solem · filed 1980-08-28

To maintain a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 the pleadings must allege the deprivation of a constitutional right. While the facts alleged here may state a cause of action under South Dakota law, mere defamation by itself does not constitute a cause of action under § 1983 or § 1985.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of constitutional or federal statutory rights by a person acting under color of state law.

German v. Killeen · filed 1980-08-25

Section 1983 affords protection against violation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of constitutional or statutory rights by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Di Maggio v. O'BRIEN · filed 1980-08-14

The only federal claim remaining against defendants Plunkett and Hammel is brought under § 1983. To state a claim under that section, a plaintiff must allege a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to identify a specific constitutional guarantee violated by the challenged conduct; an injury by a state official alone is insufficient.

Whitaker v. McCullough · filed 1980-10-28

Every legally cognizable injury which may havé been inflicted by a state official does not establish a violation of one’s federal constitutional rights; a plaintiff is required to point-to a specific constitutional guarantee safe-guarding the interest he or she claims has been invaded.

Section 1983 requires a prisoner seeking supervisory liability against a warden to plead specific facts showing that the warden knew or should have known of the incident or a substantially similar pattern and that a policy or practice could have prevented the harm.

McCain v. Kelley · filed 1980-11-12

However, a plaintiff must plead with specificity the alleged violations of his civil rights. ... Nor does he allege whether the Warden knew or should have known that this particular incident or others substantially similar to it happened or were likely to occur or whether any general pattern of injurious conduct could have been prevented by change or enforcement of a policy or practice. ... “... the liability of supervisory personnel under section 1983 turns on whether the prisoner complains about a sporadic incident, which may be beyond the control of a supervisor, or about general conditions and policies properly within the supervisory purview of the officer in charge of the prison.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law, and conduct outside a public defender's authorized representation is not under color of state law.

Singleton v. Hoester · filed 1980-12-01

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983, plaintiff must allege that (1) he has been deprived of a federal right; and (2) the person who deprived him of that right acted under color of state law. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). ... Because of the limited scope of defendant's authority to represent plaintiff, any action taken by defendant regarding correction of plaintiff's sentence, including the failure to file said motion, was outside the scope of defendant's authority and therefore not under color of state law. The defendant public defender's motion to dismiss this second claim will also be granted.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Fadjo v. Coon · filed 1981-01-09

To state a claim under section 1983, Fadjo must allege that the appellees "deprived him of a right secured by the 'Constitution and laws' of the United States" and that they did so "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation custom, or usage of any State...." Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1604, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970).

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a constitutional or federally secured right under color of state law.

Nunn v. Black · filed 1981-01-14

The initial step in the analysis of whether the plaintiffs have stated a claim for which relief can be granted requires the court to determine the requisite elements that must be contained in a claim entitled to relief under § 1983. ... Therefore, the first issue for this court to decide is whether the plaintiffs were deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or by Federal law. Specifically, the present inquiry is whether the plaintiffs had a right in Church membership protected by the Constitution or Federal law that was abridged when they were expelled by the congregation. An evaluation of the arguments of both parties and the authority cited therein leads this court to conclude that in the present situation the plaintiffs enjoyed no right to continued Church membership that was protected by Federal law or the Constitution. ... Even should the court determine that the plaintiffs were deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or by Federal law, the plaintiffs would still have to show that the deprivation occurred under color of State law. ... In the present case, this requisite element of “state action” is lacking.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant caused the deprivation, either through personal participation or by causing it indirectly, and the required causal connection is proximate or legal causation rather than mere causation in fact.

Arnold v. International Business MacHines Corporation · filed 1981-02-05

Thus, liability under section 1983 can be established by showing that the defendant personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights, or caused such a deprivation to occur. ... The causation requirement of sections 1983 and 1985 is not satisfied by a showing of mere causation in fact. ... Rather, the plaintiff must establish proximate or legal causation.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of a federal right, but creates no substantive rights of its own and requires the underlying statute to confer a federal right upon the plaintiff.

Meyerson v. State of Ariz. · filed 1981-02-12

Nevertheless, it is clear that § 1983 is purely a remedial statute — it provides no substantive rights. ... In order to have an action under § 1983, it is not enough to establish the violation of a federal statute. Rather, the statute violated must be one that confers a federal right upon the plaintiff.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law, and a private party's conclusory conspiracy allegation does not establish that requirement.

Cerbone v. County of Westchester · filed 1981-02-18

A prerequisite to a § 1983 claim is that the defendant was acting under color of state law. ... It is well established, however, that court-appointed counsel defending an accused does not act under color of state law. ... A private person who willfully participates in joint activity with a state agent meets the color of state law requirement. ... Vague and conclusory allegations of conspiracy do not suffice to establish a § 1983 claim.

To state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a party must show that the defendant acted under color of state law and that the plaintiff was deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by federal law.

Woosley v. Hi-Plains Harvestore, Inc. · filed 1981-02-04

In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a party must show that (1) the defendant’s actions were under color of state law, and (2) the plaintiff has been subject to a deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law to support a civil-rights claim.

Garcia v. Mahones · filed 1981-02-05

To constitute a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, plaintiff must demonstrate that she was deprived of rights secured by the Constitution and that such deprivation was achieved under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of a federally secured right and specific illegal misconduct causing resultant harm sufficient to determine whether the wrong is federally cognizable.

Fair v. Givan · filed 1981-03-13

The first inquiry of an allegation of a § 1983 complaint is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a federal right “secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff in a § 1983 action is “required to set forth specific illegal misconduct and resultant harm in a way which will permit an informed ruling whether the wrong complained of is of federal cognizance.”

Section 1983 requires proof that defendants acted under color of state law and denied a constitutional right, although qualified official immunity may preclude damages.

Soto v. Chardon · filed 1981-05-07

The proof of a § 1983 action, absent a claim of qualified official immunity requires only two elements: (1) That the defendants acted under color of state law, and (2) that a constitutional right has been denied.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff seeking damages to show that a defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federally secured right and acted under color of state law.

Jackson v. Dillon · filed 1981-07-15

In order to be awarded relief in a civil rights action, a plaintiff must establish two elements: first, that a particular defendant has caused a deprivation of a right guaranteed by the federal constitution, and second, that that person acted under color of State law. ... This threshold inquiry is necessary because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 empowers this Court to award damages only for deprivations of rights secured by the federal constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state or territorial law.

William M. Gilday, Jr. v. Boone · filed 1981-07-22

A suit by an inmate against state prison officials for Constitutional deprivation should be couched as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, although this statute is never specifically mentioned in either complaint. “By the plain terms of § 1983, two — and only two — allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under that statute. First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.”

Section 1983 provides a cause of action when a defendant acting under color of state law deprives a person of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by federal law or the Constitution.

Smith v. Walsh · filed 1981-08-07

A cause of action is stated under section 1983 if it is alleged that defendants acted under color of state law and that the plaintiff was deprived by their acts of some right, privilege, or immunity under the laws or Constitution of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege both the deprivation of a federal right and action under color of state or territorial law.

Hoover v. Holston Valley Community Hospital · filed 1981-08-25

Under that statute, two allegations are required in order to state a cognizable claim: “ * * * First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law. * * * ”

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege a deprivation caused by state action of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Ogilbee v. Western District Guidance Center, Inc., a Non-Profit Corporation, and J. F. Brammer · filed 1981-09-02

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to show deprivation, by virtue of state action, of a right secured by the Constitution or other law of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against defendants acting under color of state law who deprive plaintiffs of constitutional rights.

Firefighters Inc. for Racial Equality v. Bach · filed 1981-09-25

Because the defendants were acting under color of state law, and allegedly deprived plaintiffs of constitutional rights, plaintiffs have also stated a claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires allegations that a person deprived the plaintiff of a federal right of constitutional dimensions and acted under color of state or territorial law.

Smith v. Gibson · filed 1981-10-20

It is now clearly established that “by the plain terms of § 1983, two and only two allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under that statute.” ... First, the Plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right of constitutional dimensions. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.

Section 1983 uses the same elements as Title VII for parallel employment disparate-treatment relief and permits compensatory and punitive damages, although punitive damages require bad faith and malice.

Acosta v. University of the District of Columbia · filed 1981-12-01

The elements for a cause of action under sections 1981 and 1983 are identical to those of Title VII when used as a parallel basis for relief against disparate treatment in employment. ... Under §§ 1981 and 1983 compensatory and punitive damages are available. ... Punitive damages are awarded in cases where bad faith and malice are shown.

Section 1983 does not support a cause of action absent a deprivation of a particular right, privilege, or immunity secured by the state or federal constitutions or laws.

Dominguez v. Stone · filed 1981-12-08

Nowhere does plaintiff allege or present any facts of a deprivation of any particular right, privilege, or immunity secured by the state or federal constitutions or laws, by anyone acting under color of statute, or otherwise. Absent some such deprivation, a cause of action will not lie under § 1983.

Section 1983 imposes civil liability on a person acting under color of state law who deprives a citizen of rights secured by the Constitution and federal laws.

Strack v. Donahue · filed 1981-12-11

In deciding whether Strack has stated a cause of action under § 1983, then, the initial inquiry is whether the facts alleged in her complaint, if proven, would establish a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the “Constitution and laws” of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff alleging an unconstitutional property deprivation to prove that the challenged conduct itself was unreasonable or culpable, in addition to any improper entry.

Ellis v. City of Chicago · filed 1981-12-15

In order to establish an unconstitutional deprivation of property in the dog under either § 1983 or the 14th Amendment, plaintiffs were required to prove that defendants acted unacceptably in the shooting itself as well as in the allegedly improper entry.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege both deprivation of a federal right and action under color of state or territorial law.

Carter v. Rupracht · filed 1981-12-23

“First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of a property or liberty interest to prevail on a claim.

Gorham v. Hutto · filed 1981-12-30

To prevail on their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appellants must have alleged a deprivation of a property or liberty interest. ... Since we find that prison policy guidelines are not a sufficient basis for affording state prisoners a liberty interest in not being transferred to other prison institutions within the same state, appellants’ claims to “liberty interests” arising from Guideline No. 821 must fail.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law; a statutory-rights claim also requires that the statute create rights within the scope of section 1983.

Weems v. Pierce · filed 1982-03-24

For there to have been a violation of section 1983, two elements must be present: (1) the conduct complained of must have been by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... For plaintiff to state a successful claim of statutory violation under section 1983, there must be a determination that (1) Congress, in enacting the statutes and their enforcement schemes, supplanted a private remedy, and (2) that the statutes relied on created “rights, privileges or immunities” within the scope of section 1983. ... The court finds no basis for a claim of statutory violation under section 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege both a deprivation of a federal right and action under color of state or territorial law; alleged employment benefits do not support the claim without a federally protected property right.

Wilson v. Moss · filed 1982-04-05

By the plain terms of § 1983, two — and only two — allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under that statute. First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law. ... Under the above standard, however, these contentions do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1983. ... Therefore, because the claims in the. Fourth Cause of Action, as it is currently constituted, do not establish the presence of a federally protected property right, the Court concludes that the Fourth Cause of Action must be conditionally dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the challenged conduct was committed under color of state law and deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Goldstein v. Spears · filed 1982-04-07

In order to state a claim under Section 1983, plaintiff must allege that “(1) .. . the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) ... this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 covers deprivations of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Gonzales v. City of Peoria · filed 1982-04-19

Plaintiffs have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants denied them any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to deprive an individual of a constitutional right while acting under color of state law.

Masel v. Industrial Com'n of Illinois · filed 1982-05-28

Thus, in order to bring suit under section 1983, a defendant must have deprived an individual of a right or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution and have acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege both deprivation of a constitutional right and action under color of state law; a state custom or usage must itself cause the deprivation.

Banghart v. Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania · filed 1982-06-04

The Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear that in order to recover in a § 1983 action a plaintiff must prove two essential elements. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants have deprived him of a right secured by the “Constitution and laws” of the United States. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants deprived him of this constitutional right “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.” This second element requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant acted “under color of law.” ... The touchstone of a § 1983 action is an allegation that a “custom or usage” of the State has been responsible for a deprivation of constitutional rights. ... It is only when a state custom or usage deprives a person of a constitutional right that a cause of action arises pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

C. L. Freier, and All Others Similarly Situated v. New York Life Insurance Co., a Foreign Corporation · filed 1982-06-14

To establish a claim under that section, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendant was acting “under color of state law” at the time of the acts complained of, and (2) that defendant deprived plaintiff of her right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or Laws of the United States. ... The mere fact that a business is regulated by state law or agency does not convert its dealings into acts “under color of state law.” ... Beyond question, appellant has failed to show the requisite state action. Accordingly, we conclude that her complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires proof that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Schiller v. Strangis · filed 1982-06-04

To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that he was deprived of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States by a person acting “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State.”

A § 1983 due-process claim is not ripe until a definitive administrative determination has caused a practical denial or deprivation of due process.

Amanto v. Witlin · filed 1982-07-29

To state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants acted under color of state law and that their conduct deprived him of some right or privilege protected by the Constitution of the United States. ... Plaintiff asserts that he is not required to exhaust all state remedies before filing suit under section 1983. However, the issue of exhaustion does not have to be addressed because the question here is one of ripeness, not exhaustion. ... There must at least be some definitive administrative determination resulting in a denial or deprivation of due process before he can raise such a claim. Until there is a final decision which has practical impact on a litigant, it is not ripe for adjudication. ... Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and his complaint must be dismissed.

Section 1983 requires both a deprivation of federally protected rights and action caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Willis v. Cool · filed 1982-09-01

To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 two elements must exist. .First, the plaintiff must have suffered the deprivation of federally protected rights, privileges, or immunities as the result of action taken.... Second, such deprivation must have been caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff seeking damages to prove a right, its deprivation, and causation by a person acting under color of state law.

Singer Ex Rel. Singer v. Wadman · filed 1982-09-03

To recover damages in a civil action under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that he possessed a right, that the right was deprived, and that the deprivation was caused by the actions of a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 imposes liability on a person acting under color of state law who deprives another of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Pool v. White · filed 1982-08-30

imposes liability upon any “person” who, under color of state law, deprives another of any right secured by the federal constitution or laws.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show both deprivation of a constitutional or federal right and action under color of state law.

Crocker v. First Hudson Associates · filed 1982-09-22

It is well established that to succeed in a suit, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, two major elements must be shown. The first is that plaintiff was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. If that element be established, plaintiff must next establish that the defendant sued deprived her of that right “acting under color” of a State statute.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show both a deprivation of a constitutional or federal right and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Taylor ex rel. Taylor v. St. Clair · filed 1982-09-16

It is axiomatic that in order to be entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a right secured to him under the Constitution or federal law, and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law, and a due-process claim fails without a cognizable state-law property interest.

Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District · filed 1982-09-24

In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that Defendants were acting under color of state law, and, consequently, the first requirement for a § 1983 claim has been satisfied. ... Given Plaintiffs’ failure to assert a property interest which is cognizable, or protected under the laws of Ohio, the Court must conclude that the First Claim in the Complaint is insufficient to satisfy the second element required under § 1983, i.e., that the conduct in question operated to deprive a person of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Consequently, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ First Claim is deemed to be well taken, and must be granted.

A property deprivation, whether intentional or negligent, cannot support a § 1983 claim when the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy satisfying procedural due process.

Moore v. Gluckstern · filed 1982-09-30

Thus, if the State provides a post-deprivation remedy for a deprivation of property, that remedy satisfies the demands of procedural due process and the deprivation, whether caused intentionally or negligently, cannot serve as the basis of a cause of action under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim for a constitutional violation when the defendant police officer may have acted under color of official authority.

Alfred Samuel Zynn, Jr. v. O'DOnnell · filed 1982-09-28

Moreover on either approach Zynn may be able to prove that O’Donnell was acting under color of his authority as a police officer.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional right.

Shepherd v. Jones · filed 1982-10-27

In order to maintain a cause of action under 42 United States Code section 1983, appellant must establish that (a) respondents acted under color of state law, and (b) that this conduct deprived him of a right secured by the federal Constitution.

Section 1983 requires proof of an affirmative causal connection between a particular person acting under color of state law and the constitutional deprivation.

Williams v. Bennett · filed 1982-10-29

The italicized language plainly requires proof of an affirmative causal connection between the actions taken by a particular person “under color of state law” and the constitutional deprivation.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege both a deprivation of a constitutional right and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Doe v. South Florida State Hospital · filed 1982-10-25

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a deprivation of a constitutional right and the effectuation of that deprivation under color of state law.

Section 1983, when used as a parallel remedy for a violation of Title VII section 703, has the same elements as the Title VII cause of action.

30 Fair empl.prac.cas. 624, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,176 Mary Delia Russaw Hardin v. Leroy N. Stynchcomb, 1 Etc. · filed 1982-11-22

When section 1983 is used as a parallel remedy for violation of section 703 of Title VII the elements of the two causes of action are the same.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege a state-action deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Dakuras v. Wagrowski · filed 1982-11-30

In order to state a claim under § 1983, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to show deprivation, by virtue of state action, of a right secured by the Constitution or other law of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead and prove that a person deprived it of a constitutional or statutory right under color of state law.

Arkhola Sand & Gravel Company, Appellant v. City of Booneville · filed 1982-12-07

To state a cause of action under this section, Arkhola must plead and prove, not only that the person sued deprived it of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws, but also that the deprivation occurred under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the state.

Section 1983 permits a federal civil-rights claim when the allegations show an intentional or purposeful violation of constitutional rights and otherwise plead the elements of such a claim.

Weiss v. Feigenbaum · filed 1982-12-07

Considering the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ amended complaint, it is plain that they do contain an element of intentional or purposeful violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, as well as the other elements necessary to make out claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985(3).

Section 1983 permits a conspiracy action and requires allegations that a person deprived the plaintiff of a federal right while acting under color of state or territorial law.

Sellner v. Panagoulis · filed 1982-12-29

Section 1983, unlike section 1985, does not specifically refer to conspiracies. Nevertheless, an action for conspiracy can be maintained under section 1983. ... By the plain terms of § 1983, two — and only two — allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under that statute. First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.

A § 1983 claim for an unconstitutional taking of property does not ripen until the related state-law compensation claim has been decided.

Suess Builders Co. v. City of Beaverton · filed 1982-12-29

We do the same and hold that the § 1983 claim does not ripen until the claim under Oregon Constitution, article I, section 18, has been decided. It therefore is not precluded by lack of notice under ORS 30.275 or by the statute of limitations.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish a clear violation of a constitutional or other federally protected right to prevail on a claim.

Mosby v. Mabry · filed 1982-12-30

In order to prevail upon a section 1983 claim, it is essential to establish a clear violation of a constitutional right or other federally protected right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show conduct under color of state law that deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Capital Telephone Co. v. City of Schenectady, NY · filed 1983-01-20

In determining whether plaintiff has established a § 1983 claim, this Court’s inquiry must focus on 1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and 2) whether the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Here, plaintiff has satisfied the first prong of this two prong test. Defendants readily admit that they acted under color of state law. However, plaintiff has not established the deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured to it by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for deprivation of a federal constitutional right under color of state law.

American Re-Insurance Co. v. Insurance Commissioner · filed 1983-01-21

A section 1983 cause of action is established by deprivation of a federal constitutional right under color of state law. ... Because this economic legislation does not affect fundamental rights or rely on suspect classifications, it does not offend the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution unless the classification bears no rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. ... This classification is rationally related to the state’s interest in preserving insolvent insurers’ assets for the liquidators’ distribution pursuant to statutory priorities.

Section 1983 requires conduct fairly attributable to the state that results in a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution.

Korevec v. Warren Hospital · filed 1983-02-16

In order to state a claim under § 1983 plaintiff must allege that conduct ... “fairly attributable to the state” ... has resulted in a deprivation of a right “secured by the Constitution”.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Hickman v. Hudson · filed 1983-03-02

Two essential elements must be alleged in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, there must be conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law; secondly, the conduct must have deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a constitutional or federal right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Kenyon v. Jennings · filed 1983-04-13

It is hornbook law that a well-pleaded complaint under § 1983 must allege that the plaintiff was deprived of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that the defendant accomplished this deprivation while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law and violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

La Plant v. Frazier · filed 1983-04-20

Section 1983 requires that plaintiff allege that defendant (1) acted under color of state law, and (2) violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not support a claim where the plaintiff identifies no constitutional or federal statutory violation and no deprived liberty or property right.

Transport Limousine of Long Island, Inc. v. Port Authority · filed 1983-04-20

We dismiss this claim on the grounds that (1) no finding of constitutional violation (respecting the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause) or federal statutory violation (respecting the anti-trust laws and AADA) can be made here and (2) Transport’s remaining claim that its constitutional property rights were violated is vague and without support.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove a deprivation of constitutional rights and that the defendants acted under color of state law.

Elam v. Montgomery County · filed 1983-05-11

“Two essential elements must be pled and proven by a plaintiff to recover under 1983.” ... “First, there must be a deprivation of plaintiff’s “... rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ...” of the United States. Second, the plaintiff must allege that the defendants deprived him of this constitutional right “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.”

Section 1983 provides a remedy only when a person acting under color of state law deprives someone of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Lynn v. City of New Orleans Department of Police · filed 1983-05-23

For recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law, and the conduct must have deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A § 1983 plaintiff must have been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Enright v. Board of School Directors of the City of Milwaukee · filed 1983-06-13

The first inquiry in any § 1983 suit is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

A Section 1983 cause of action requires a violated liberty or property interest.

Stough v. Crenshaw County Board of Education · filed 1983-06-28

In order for a plaintiff to state a cause of action under Section 1983 there must exist some liberty or property interest that has been violated.

Section 1983 recovery requires conduct by a person acting under color of law that deprives the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right, privilege, or immunity.

Fritz v. Norblad · filed 1983-07-14

Section 1983 prescribes two elements as requisite for recovery: (1) the conduct complained of must have been by some person acting under the color of law; and (2) such conduct must have subjected the complainant to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

A § 1983 cause of action requires both deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and causation by a person acting under color of state law.

Vikse v. Basin Electric Power Cooperative · filed 1983-07-25

To establish a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appellants must establish (1) that they have been deprived of a right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law.

A § 1983 plaintiff must show that a person acting under color of state law deprived her of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by federal law or the Constitution.

Almendral v. New York State Office of Mental Health · filed 1983-07-29

Plaintiff next argues that defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To establish a violation of that statute plaintiff must demonstrate that a person acting under color of state law deprived her of a right, privilege or immunity protected by the constitution or laws of the United States.

A Section 1983 claim requires only that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Soto v. City of Sacramento · filed 1983-08-24

“By the plain terms of section 1983 two— and only two — allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under [42 U.S.C. § 1983]. First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state ... law.”

A Section 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a constitutional right.

Terrace Knolls, Inc. v. Dalton, Dalton, Little & Newport, Inc. · filed 1983-09-28

A claim under § 1983 requires two elements: (1) conduct by defendants under color of state law; and (2) deprivation of plaintiffs constitutional rights because of that conduct.

A § 1983 plaintiff must allege both deprivation of a federal right and conduct under color of state law; merely alleging a wrong is insufficient.

Hart v. Cash · filed 1984-04-24

In order for the plaintiff to have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must not only allege that he has been wronged, but that he has been deprived of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that such deprivation must have been made under color of state law, regulation, custom, or usage.

A valid § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Robb, James v. City of Philadelphia and Mann, Fredric R. And Horowitz, Vladimir and Crawford, Robert W. And Washington, · filed 1984-05-07

To establish a valid claim under § 1983, a claimant must show: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and ... (2) that the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

To prevail on a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show both that the defendant acted under color of state law and that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Oberlander v. Perales · filed 1984-06-29

To prevail on its statutory and constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Flatbush Manor must establish that: (i) "the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law"; and (ii) that conduct deprived it "of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

A section 1983 claim requires the plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

McBride v. Hallenbeck · filed 1984-07-02

In any § 1983 action, plaintiff must show that a person acting under color of state law has deprived him of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

A lawsuit seeking only compensation for a taking of property, without alleging that the government violated the plaintiff's civil rights, is not an action brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

County of Clark v. Alper · filed 1984-07-03

In reviewing the record before us we note that the Alpers neither initiated an action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 nor argued that the county violated their civil rights. They merely sought compensation for the taking of their land for public use. Since 42 U.S.C. section 1983 does not apply to the present proceeding, the award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. section 1988 was improper.

A section 1983 plaintiff states a claim by alleging that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a constitutionally secured right while acting under color of state law.

Meeker v. Addison · filed 1984-07-06

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that (1) Defendant ADDISON has deprived Plaintiff of a constitutionally secured right, and (2) Defendant ADDISON acted under color of state law. These are the essential elements of a federal civil rights action under § 1983.

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal right.

Robin Dooley and Patrick Matz v. Jerome Reiss, Ken McAlpine Mike Manley, Randy Worrell, Dale Wilcox and Stephen Marks · filed 1984-07-10

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ... a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

To establish a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under color of state law and caused a deprivation of a constitutional or federal right.

O'SULLIVAN v. Saperston · filed 1984-07-19

The Court is mindful that to establish a section 1983 claim, plaintiffs need only show that defendants acted under color of state law and caused them to be deprived of a constitutional or federal right.

To prevail on a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant acted under color of state law and that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal statutes.

Smith v. Dooley · filed 1984-07-23

In order to prevail in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the conduct of the defendants was under the color of state law, and that the conduct resulted in a deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and/or its statutes.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege both that they were deprived of a federal right and that the person who deprived them of it acted under color of state or territorial law.

Jackson v. Michigan State Democratic Party · filed 1984-09-10

To state a claim for which relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs must allege: 1) that they have been deprived of a federal right, and 2) that the person who deprived them of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the deprivation of a federally protected right when that deprivation was committed under color of state law.

Lesher v. Lavrich · filed 1984-09-13

Plaintiffs also bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows for recovery for the deprivation of a federally protected right, if such deprivation has been committed under color of state law.

To prevail in a Section 1983 action, a plaintiff must show both that he was deprived of a constitutional right and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Ewing v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan · filed 1984-09-06

It is well settled that in order to prevail in a Section 1983 action, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that he was deprived of a constitutional right and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by federal law.

Haines v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1984-12-03

In determining whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the initial inquiry in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action must focus on whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law and whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A Section 1983 cause of action requires both deprivation of a constitutional right or privilege and action under color of state law.

Diulus v. Churchill Valley Country Club · filed 1985-01-23

The elements of a cause of action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are 1) deprivation of a constitutional right or privilege; and 2) action under color of state law.

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both action under color of state law and a resulting deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Means v. Maharowski · filed 1985-02-11

Any section 1983 action must establish two essential elements: “(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

A Section 1983 plaintiff must identify a Constitution- or federal-law-protected interest and show that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of that interest.

Bernstein v. Township of Lower Moreland · filed 1985-02-21

In order to be within the class of plaintiffs protected by § 1983, the party must identify an interest protected by the Constitution or federal law and must demonstrate that there has been a deprivation of that interest.

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and that the responsible person acted under color of state law.

Goetz v. Haygood · filed 1985-02-22

A person seeking to establish a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must establish two essential elements: (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States; and (2) that the person or persons who caused the alleged deprivation were “acting under col- or of state law.”

A § 1983 claim requires proof that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right and did so under color of state law.

Del's Big Saver Foods, Inc. v. Carpenter Cook, Inc. · filed 1985-03-01

Before a plaintiff can prevail on a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must prove (1) that the defendant has deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States; and (2) that the defendant has deprived him of this right under color of state law.

A section 1983 complaint must allege that conduct under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by federal law.

Emory v. Clarence Peeler, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Superior Court Judge, Stone Mountain Judi · filed 1985-04-08

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant’s act or omission, done under color of state law, deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct by a person acting under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Whitehorn v. E.L. Harrelson Mr. Green D. Foster, E. Potts, Counselors · filed 1985-04-25

A section 1983 claim is conditioned on two essential elements: first, the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law; second, this conduct must have deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

A § 1983 action requires conduct under color of state law that deprives someone of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Weber v. City of Cedarburg · filed 1985-05-08

There are two elements essential to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action: (1) the defendant’s conduct must be committed under color of state law, and (2) this conduct must deprive someone of rights, privileges or immunities secured by federal law or the United States Constitution.

A section 1983 claim requires deprivation of a federal right by action taken under color of state law.

Kramer v. Horton · filed 1985-05-06

Under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, only two elements are required to state a claim: (1) the plaintiff must have been ... deprived of a right secured by the constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the actions of the defendant must have been taken under color of state law.

Section 1983 lets a person deprived of a federal right by a public official seek redress in federal court, subject to qualified immunity when a reasonable official would not have known the conduct violated clearly established law.

Flick v. Larue · filed 1985-05-20

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a party deprived of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a public official may seek redress in federal court. ... Thus, a governmental official can prevail on a motion for summary judgment if he shows that a reasonable person would not have known that the official’s actions were in violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

A section 1983 procedural-due-process claim requires first determining whether the plaintiff was deprived of life, liberty, or property and then whether the plaintiff received adequate process.

Sweeney v. Special School District No. 1 · filed 1985-05-21

To determine whether the statute has been violated requires the answer to a two-tier analysis: (1) was the plaintiff deprived of life, liberty or property; and, if so, (2) did the plaintiff receive adequate due process?

A section 1983 procedural-due-process plaintiff must show deprivation of a liberty or property interest and inadequate procedural protection before or after that deprivation.

Kelleher v. Peter Flawn, Gerhard Fonken, Robert King, Joseph Horn, and Charles Cnudde · filed 1985-06-03

Thus, in order to recover under the Fourteenth Amendment in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she was deprived of a liberty of property interest and that she was not afforded adequate procedural protection pri- or to or following the deprivation.

A § 1983 claim requires action under color of state law and deprivation of a federal constitutional right, privilege, or immunity.

Chapman v. Luna · filed 1985-06-11

The statutory prerequisites for a Section 1983 cause of action are “that the defendants must have acted under color of law, regulation, custom or usage of the State of New Mexico, and that the plaintiff must have been deprived of federal constitutional rights, privileges and immunities.”

A § 1983 cause of action requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Waste Aid Systems, Inc. v. Citrus County, Florida · filed 1985-06-11

The two essential elements of a section 1983 cause of action are: (1) “the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law;” and (2) “the conduct deprived a person of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

A section 1983 claim requires deprivation of a federal right and action under color of law.

Gilbert v. West Georgia Medical Center Authority · filed 1985-06-24

Plaintiff must show two elements in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She must show that she was deprived of rights secured to her by the laws or Constitution of the United States, and that defendants acted under color of law.

A section 1983 plaintiff must show both deprivation of a federal right and that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Mcintosh v. Arkansas Republican Party-Frank White Election Committee · filed 1985-06-25

First, McIntosh must demonstrate that he was "deprived of a right 'secured by the Constitution and the laws' of the United States." ... Second, McIntosh must show that the defendants "deprived [him] of this right [while] acting 'under color of any statute' of the State" of Arkansas.

Section 1983 creates no substantive rights; a claim requires deprivation of an independently protected federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Garcia v. Wyckoff · filed 1985-07-15

In order to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must show that some person deprived him of a federal right while acting under color of state law. ... Because § 1983 creates no substantive rights, where a complaint fails to allege a deprivation or violation of a protected right, the cause of action must be dismissed.

A § 1983 unconstitutional-taking claim requires a property interest, a taking under color of state law, and the absence of due process or just compensation.

Port Chester Yacht Club, Inc. v. Iasillo · filed 1985-07-23

In this case, plaintiff must show three elements to support a claim of an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983: (1) a property interest (2) that has been taken under the color of state law (3) without due process or just compensation.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprived a person of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Hicks v. Feeney · filed 1985-08-26

In any Sec. 1983 action, the court must first make an inquiry to ascertain the presence of the two essential elements to a Sec. 1983 claim: whether the alleged conduct was committed by a person acting under color of state law and whether the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprived the plaintiff of federal constitutional or statutory rights.

Brooks v. Miller · filed 1985-09-30

It is clear that in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must submit proof tending to establish both that the conduct complained of is committed by a person acting under color of state law and that the conduct deprived him of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or laws of the United States.

A Section 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution.

Campbell v. State of Me. · filed 1985-10-01

To support an action under section 1983, ... a plaintiff must establish that conduct of a person or persons, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A Section 1983 plaintiff must show both conduct under color of state law and deprivation of a federal statutory or constitutional right.

Greco v. Guss · filed 1985-10-01

To prevail on a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) that this conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of a federally protected right by a person acting under color of state law.

Bird v. State, Department of Public Safety · filed 1985-10-08

which provides a remedy for deprivation of a federally protected right by a person or persons acting under color of state law.

A § 1983 due-process claim requires deprivation of liberty under color of law and without Fourteenth Amendment due process.

L.R. Bretz v. Zollie Kelman, Jack R. Lande, Eugene R. Welborn · filed 1985-10-08

Bretz has properly stated a claim under § 1983, if he claims that he was deprived of liberty: (1) under color of law and (2) without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

A § 1983 claim requires a state actor under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of a constitutionally protected right without due process.

Riverview Investments, Inc. v. Ottawa Community Improvement Corporation · filed 1985-10-09

To establish a § 1983 action, plaintiff must show that a. state official or representative, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff of a constitutionally protected right without due process.