42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 plaintiffs generally need not exhaust state administrative review procedures before suing, even when federal law requires states to provide those procedures.

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Kliebert · filed 2015-10-29

Thus, a congressional requirement that states establish administrative review procedures, as exists here, rarely, if ever, implies that either § 1983 plaintiffs need exhaust them or a case is unripe when the process has not been invoked but an injury plainly looms.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before bringing an action.

Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Flint Community Schools · filed 2015-11-23

Instead, the plaintiff filed suit to enforce its rights under the Protection and Advocacy Acts via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “[E]xhaustion of state administrative, remedies [is not] required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to § 1983.” Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of State of Fla., 457 U.S. 496, 516, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982).

Section 1983 actions require inmates to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing and to plead that exhaustion sufficiently.

Davis v. Simmons · filed 2004-06-29

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires inmates to exhaust “available” administrative remedies prior to filing an action under § 1983, even where the “available” remedies appear futile at providing the kind of remedy sought.

Section 1983 generally does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state judicial or administrative remedies before filing suit.

Tempest Horsley v. Trame · filed 2015-12-14

There is no general duty to exhaust state judi- cial or administrative remedies before pursuing an action un- der 42 U.S.C. § 1983, however.

Section 1983 does not generally require a plaintiff to exhaust state or local remedies before filing suit.

Mechammil v. City of San Jacinto · filed 2016-06-30

There is no general exhaustion requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before suing.

Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee · filed 2016-09-14

And, importantly, the Individual Plaintiffs have no administrative appeal rights and they are not subject to (nor could they be) any administrative exhaustion requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies before filing suit.

Fort Des Moines Church of Christ v. Jackson · filed 2016-10-14

The general rule is that exhaustion is not required prior to bringing suit for violations of § 1983.

An inmate bringing a § 1983 claim in Kansas state court must exhaust available administrative remedies but need not file proof of exhaustion with the petition.

Sperry v. McKune · filed 2016-11-23

Hence, when an inmate states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a Kansas state court can enforce Kansas' requirement that an inmate exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit because the same requirement is present in federal law, but it cannot impose a pleading requirement not found in federal law.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a claim.

Mitchell ex rel. Mitchell v. Community Mental Health of Central Michigan · filed 2017-03-22

The plaintiffs’ federal claims are based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. None of those statutes contains an exhaustion prerequisite.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies, but a plaintiff must still have a final decision to challenge.

Mosley v. City of Wickliffe · filed 2017-03-23

Although there is no requirement that a plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 action, Patsy v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 507 (1982), plaintiffs must still ... answer the conceptually distinct question of whether there is a final decision for this court to review.

Section 1983 claims may be subject to an exhaustion requirement when an adequate administrative remedy is available.

Mangiafico v. Town of Farmington · filed 2017-05-16

Contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, even claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before suing.

Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee · filed 2017-06-29

And, importantly, the Individual Plaintiffs have no administrative appeal rights, and they are not subject to (nor could they be) any administrative exhaustion requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require Medicaid patients with no administrative appeal rights to exhaust state administrative remedies before suing.

Planned Parenthood of Kan. v. Andersen · filed 2018-02-21

And the Patients are not subject to an exhaustion requirement under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not let a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief in state court bypass the exhaustion requirement when an adequate administrative remedy exists.

Metropolitan District v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2018-03-27

This court has rejected that claim in part II A of this opinion. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot ‘‘forestall an invocation of the exhaustion doctrine’’ due to the inclusion of a § 1983 count in its complaint.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust state administrative remedies before filing suit.

Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty. · filed 2018-03-27

As to Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims, the Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff need not exhaust state administrative remedies prior to bringing a § 1983 action. ... Accordingly, while the Plaintiffs could have pursued the same appellate process as in Ware I , they were not required to do so before filing suit in this Court.

Section 1983 does not require nonprisoners to exhaust state judicial or administrative remedies before suing.

DuFour v. Matrisch · filed 2018-08-27

But § 1983 does not require nonprisoners to exhaust state judicial or administrative remedies.

Section 1983 does not allow taxpayers to bypass adequate state tax remedies, including required administrative review.

Holzheid v. Comptroller · filed 2019-03-28

The administrative remedies provided by the Tax-General Article, as described in detail above, including suit before the Tax Court, are “plain, adequate, and complete,” thereby obviating Appellants’ ability to circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court by asserting claims pursuant to Section 1983.

Section 1983 plaintiffs need not exhaust state administrative remedies before filing in state court, regardless of the relief sought.

Mangiafico v. Town of Farmington · filed 2019-04-16

Consistent with Patsy, we now hold that a § 1983 plaintiff need not exhaust state administrative reme- dies, regardless of the type of relief sought in the com- plaint.

Section 1983 allows residents of the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program to sue without exhausting state administrative remedies.

Burch v. Keck · filed 2019-05-24

Because exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for residents of the Kansas SPTP bringing § 1983 claims, the district court's judgment is reversed and remanded.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing an equal protection claim.

NEW HORIZONS REHABILITATION, INC. v. STATE OF INDIANA · filed 2019-07-19

And no exhaustion of administrative remedies is required to bring an equal protection claim, which arises out of the Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to seek state administrative review before bringing a federal constitutional claim.

Safari Childcare Inc v. Penny · filed 2019-08-02

Accordingly, Plaintiffs could bring their § 1983 claims in federal court without first filing an administrative review action in state court.

Section 1983 claims do not require exhaustion of state administrative or judicial remedies.

Jackson v. St. Charles Parish Housing Authority Board of Commissioners · filed 2020-02-21

To the extent that Defendants are making a jurisdictional argument, as Jackson notes, it is well-established that § 1983 claims do not require exhaustion of state administrative or judicial remedies.

A nonprisoner need not exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a Section 1983 action.

Joseph v. City of San Jose · filed 2020-03-03

However, Plaintiff is not a prisoner and is not subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Hence, “exhaustion of state administrative remedies should not be required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.

Yarrington v. Candor Central School District · filed 2020-03-27

Regarding Defendants’ claims that Plaintiff did not allege a “policy or practice” in these complaints, this does not preclude her from bringing claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court as there is “no exhaustion of remedies” requirement.

Section 1983 claims filed in federal court do not require exhaustion of state contractual grievance remedies.

McReady v. Montgomery Community College · filed 2020-09-30

However, Maryland’s requirements for filing a claim do not apply to the filing of a federal claim under § 1983 in a federal court.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.

Blais v. Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families · filed 2020-10-08

Second, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before suit unless Congress provides otherwise.

Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Community Mental Health · filed 2020-10-29

Exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to suit under § 1983, Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496, 516 (1982), and “§ 1983 contains no exhaustion requirement beyond what Congress has provided,” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483 (1994).

A § 1983 due process claim challenging an unfinished licensing process can fail while administrative appeals remain unexhausted and other redress remains available.

Seaweed Co. v. Maine Department of Administrative and Financial Services · filed 2021-01-15

Count 3, the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,fails because Petitioners have not exhausted their administrative remedies and because other means of redress are available.

Section 1983 claims brought with a timely, properly perfected Rule 9 appeal of a municipal decision cannot be dismissed solely for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Convent Corporation v. City of North Little Rock, Arkansas, a Municipal Corporation; Joe Smith, Mayor, Individually and · filed 2021-01-28

In its next point on appeal, Convent argues that the circuit court erred by dismissing its constitutional claims, civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, and common-law claim of trespass on the basis that Convent had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. ... Accordingly, Convent is correct that the circuit court erred by dismissing Convent’s constitutional, civil-rights, and trespass claims solely on the basis of its failure to exhaust its administrative remedies.

Section 1983 does not require a claimant to pursue available state or other remedies before filing in federal court.

Doe v. University of Connecticut · filed 2021-02-04

Section 1983 includes no requirement that a claimant pursue available state or other remedies before commencing proceedings in federal court.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state law remedies or procedures before bringing a civil rights claim.

Creel v. City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge · filed 2021-03-08

Redress for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not require exhaustion of state law remedies or procedures.

Section 1983 claims do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Nuey v. City of Cranston · filed 2021-03-08

No exhaustion is required on the § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs challenging an election caucus to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.

Whitten v. Rochester Township Republican Central Committee · filed 2021-03-15

Even assuming, arguendo, plaintiffs could have addressed the manner in which the caucus was conducted through an administrative proceeding before an election board, they were not required to do so before seeking judicial intervention to protect their civil rights under section 1983 and section 29-17.

Section 1983 does not require nonprisoner plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.

Lott v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government · filed 2021-03-17

Because Plaintiff is not a prisoner, he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his § 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a federal civil rights claim.

Raja v. Burns · filed 2021-03-23

The plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim did not require him to “obtain relief or exhaust [his] remedies through administrative proceedings.”

Section 1983 plaintiffs need not exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.

Weinstein v. Ryder · filed 2021-03-23

Defendants’ first argument is without merit. “[U]nder section 1983, plaintiffs are not required to exhaust administrative remedies.” ... Therefore, Plaintiff was not required to first appeal the NCPD’s decision to revoke his pistol license before filing this case.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff bringing a takings claim to exhaust state remedies before suing.

Petworth Holdings, LLC v. Bowser · filed 2021-03-26

To the extent that the District’s argument relates to exhaustion alone, Petworth is right: the Fifth Amendment imposes no exhaustion requirement for takings claims brought via section 1983, nor facial claims.

Section 1983 does not require a non-prisoner plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies before suing.

South Grand View Development Company, Inc. v. City of Alabaster, Alabama · filed 2021-06-21

But in non-prisoner civil cases, such as here, “exhaustion of state administrative remedies [is] not [] required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to § 1983.” ... The City’s claim that the matter was not ripe due to SGV’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies fails as a matter of law.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies unless a statute expressly requires it.

Estancias de Cerro Mar, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority · filed 2021-09-01

And, as indicated above, the United States Supreme Court has stated repeatedly and “categorically that exhaustion is not a prerequisite to an action under § 1983” absent a statutory mandate. Patsy v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 500-01, 512 (1982). No such mandate exists here.

Section 1983 generally does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before suit; state remedies may matter to a procedural due process claim.

EGGLESTON VS. STUART · filed 2021-09-23

Under Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (1982), a party is generally not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 civil rights claim. Here, the § 1983 claim is, at its core, one for substantive due process, and because the exception for procedural due process claims does not apply, the district court improperly dismissed Eggleston's § 1983 civil rights claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before filing suit.

Grise v. Stewart County School System · filed 2021-10-19

Plaintiff is correct that she is not required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing a § 1983 claim.

A prisoner bringing a § 1983 claim in Kansas state court need not plead proof of administrative exhaustion, because that state pleading requirement cannot govern the federal claim.

Matson v. State · filed 2021-12-23

Matson correctly argues that when a state court hears an issue brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution preempts any state laws or regulations that prohibit the prosecution of a claim in a manner different from what would be required in federal court. Sperry, 305 Kan. at 483. Thus, the Kansas requirement to plead proof of exhaustion of administrative remedies is inapplicable.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies before filing suit.

Werner v. Hacker · filed 2022-04-19

To the extent Hacker argues that Werner has failed to exhaust his state administrative remedies, the Supreme Court has stated there is no duty to exhaust state administrative remedies before pursuing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Patsy v. Board of Regents of State of Florida, 457 U.S. 496 (1982).

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court.

Archer v. Griswold · filed 2022-11-02

As the Tenth Circuit has noted, “[i]t is beyond dispute that a plaintiff need not exhaust state administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court under § 1983.” ... Accordingly, any concerns regarding exhaustion do not excuse Plaintiffs’ delay in bringing suit or moving for a preliminary injunction with an election date of November 8, 2022—particularly given Plaintiffs’ own assertion that with “each day that goes by [Mr.] Archer is limited in his campaign activities.” [Doc. 1 at ¶ 44].

Section 1983 does not permit official-capacity claims against state employees when those claims are effectively suits against the state.

Bailey v. Hunter · filed 2021-07-29

The State of Arkansas cannot be subject to claims brought pursuant to § 1983.

In a section 1983 action, the Eleventh Amendment bars retroactive back pay that would be paid from a state treasury.

Gloria E. Barreto Fred v. Roque · filed 1990-10-11

Back pay is a retroactive award, and consequently payment thereof from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may not be sought in a federal forum.

Section 1983 permits a damages action against a county when an unconstitutional practice reflects county custom, and the Eleventh Amendment does not immunize the county.

Jones v. Houser · filed 1980-05-05

In Count IV, plaintiff claims that it was the custom of Pemiscot County to deny medical care to its prisoners. This clearly states a cause of action. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). A county is not, as defendant Pemiscot County argues, immune from liability imposed via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to the Eleventh Amendment. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 667 n.12, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1357, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). The Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits against a state, not a county.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials under some circumstances, even when the Eleventh Amendment is invoked.

Broome v. Percy · filed 1979-05-11

I conclude that the plaintiffs in this action could recover damages from the defendant state prison officials under some circumstances.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, so claims against a state and its agencies are barred.

Verner v. State of Colo. · filed 1982-03-19

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the State of Colorado and its named agencies (C.L.E.-board, Colorado Supreme Court, Colorado State Board of Law Examiners and the Grievance Committee of the Colorado Supreme Court), are barred by the eleventh amendment.

A § 1983 action against officials in their official capacities cannot recover monetary damages from a state treasury because the Eleventh Amendment bars that recovery.

Boyne v. Harrison · filed 1983-02-09

We are mindful that Dr. Boyne in suing President Harrison and the Board of Regents in their official capacities in the federal suit, was precluded from seeking a recovery in the federal court from the treasury of the State. This recovery is precluded in the federal court, hearing Dr. Boyne’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action, by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state that has not consented because the Eleventh Amendment makes the state immune.

Devernon Le Grand v. Matthew Evan, Clerk, Soal Schnertre, Clerk, City of New York, Kings County, State of New York · filed 1983-03-14

By virtue of the eleventh amendment, the State of New York is immune from a suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without its consent.

Section 1983 damages claims brought by a state’s citizens against the state in federal court are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Strong v. Illinois Department of Human Services · filed 2002-08-05

Illinois maintains Eleventh Amendment immunity from actions for damages brought by its citizens in federal court under § 1983.

Section 1983 monetary damages claims against a state, state agency, or state official in an official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment when payment would come from the state treasury.

Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Institute of Culture · filed 2002-08-09

It is well established that the Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 action against a State, State Agency, or any State Official in his official capacity for monetary damages that would have to be paid from the state treasury.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars retroactive injunctive relief and monetary judgments against state officials in a § 1983 action absent a waiver.

Metz v. Supreme Court · filed 2002-08-19

In addition, Plaintiffs claims against the Supreme Court of Ohio and its officials are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking retroactive relief in the form of an injunction or relief in the form of a monetary judgment against the individual Defendants, such relief is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Firestone Park Athletic Assn. v. State of Ohio · filed 2002-08-26

Furthermore, it is clear that Congress did not abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims seeking prospective relief against state officials can proceed under the Ex Parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity even when an injunction would lead to reimbursement from a state fund.

Rossborough Manufacturing Co. v. Trimble · filed 2002-08-26

While it may be argued that the explicit demand for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment is merely a cover for the implicit request for money, we conclude that the Ex Parte Young exception applies. ... Accordingly, we hold that the Treasurer and Administrator are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against a state board of elections.

Iwachiw v. NYC Board of Elections · filed 2002-08-29

Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment bars the Section 1983 action against the State Board of Elections.

A Nevada school district that is not an arm of the state lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Eason v. Clark County School District · filed 2002-09-11

We reverse the dismissal of the § 1983 and state law claims against all defendants, as well as the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the District, because the Clark County School District is not an “arm of the state” and therefore does not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against the Clark County School District and its personnel are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the district is not an arm of the state.

Eason v. Clark County School District · filed 2002-09-11

The district court erroneously concluded that the Clark County School District is an arm of the state, entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. We therefore reverse the dismissal of plaintiffs' § 1983 and state law claims against all defendants, as well as the dismissal of plaintiffs' ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the District.

Section 1983 claims against an arm of the state are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Scaglione v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District · filed 2002-09-17

Nonetheless, the § 1983 and § 1985 claims were correctly dismissed as to MUFSD because of MUFSD’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

McDuffy v. Koval · filed 2002-09-30

The Eleventh Amendment bars section 1983 claims against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims for compensatory and punitive damages against the state defendants.

Langdon v. Garner · filed 2002-10-07

The district court found Langdon’s claims in that complaint barred under the Eleventh Amendment. To the extent Langdon sought compensatory and punitive damages, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Section 1983 claims for prospective injunctive relief against state officers acting outside their authority are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Porter ex rel. Porter v. Board of Trustees · filed 2002-10-08

Based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, the court dismissed the § 1983 claim with prejudice as to the State and Local Defendants sued in their official capacities. ... We hold further that the district court erred in dismissing with prejudice the Porters’ claims for prospective injunc-tive relief against the defendants acting outside the bounds of their authority.

Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar prospective injunctive relief on a § 1983 claim against a state officer acting outside the bounds of the officer's authority.

Dashiel Porter v. Board Of Trustees Of Manhattan Beach Unified School District · filed 2002-10-08

The Porters also challenge the district court's dismissal of their claims against the defendants with prejudice based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, to the extent that they seek injunctive relief against officers who acted outside the bounds of their authority. We agree that the district court erred in this regard. "It is well established that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a federal court from granting prospective injunctive relief against an officer of the state who acts outside the bounds of his authority." Cerrato v. San Francisco Comty. Coll. Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.1994); see also Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages and declaratory relief against state officials in their individual capacities are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Strunk v. New York State Insurance Fund · filed 2002-10-09

Although Strunk’s claims seeking monetary damages and declaratory relief from the state officials in their individual capacities are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, he fails to state a claim under §§ 1983, 1985 or 1986.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for official-capacity claims seeking retroactive monetary damages.

Andrews v. Elkins · filed 2002-10-24

With regard to section 1983 claims, the Supreme Court has held that the Eleventh Amendment cannot be abrogated by an action that arises solely under section 1983. ... Here, Plaintiff seeks solely retroactive monetary relief and bases his claims against Defendant Elkins in his official capacity on section 1983. Therefore, Plaintiff is barred from suing Defendant Elkins in his official capacity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for a state university and its deans sued in their official capacities.

O'Neill v. Suni · filed 2002-11-13

We agree with the district court that the Eleventh Amendment bars O’Neill’s section 1983 claim against the University and its deans in their official capacities, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979) (§ 1983 does not contain clear legislative statement abrogating states’ immunity under Eleventh Amendment), and that O’Neill cannot bring a section 1983 action to recover for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, see Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1011 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, 528 U.S. 1146 (2000), and cert. dismissed, 529 U.S. 1001 (2000) (comprehensive remedial provisions of ADA indicate Congress did not intend violations of Act to be actionable under § 1983).

Section 1983 permits official-capacity suits against California county sheriffs administering county jails because they act for the county rather than the state.

Apollo v. County of Sacramento · filed 2002-12-04

The critical question before us is whether a county official sued in his or her official capacity acts on behalf of the state or the local entity. This question is controlled by Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir.1989), which holds that California county sheriffs are amenable to § 1983 suit when administering county jails.

Individual state officials sued in their personal capacities are not immune from Section 1983 claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

Walker v. Clark · filed 2002-12-10

The district court also incorrectly concluded that the individual defendants were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment because Walker sued these defendants in their personal capacities.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles are immune from § 1983 suits under the Eleventh Amendment.

King v. Scott · filed 2002-12-13

King contends that the district court erred in determining that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. This argument is without merit.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity; an official-capacity claim seeking a declaration that state officials violated federal law in the past is barred.

Rothenberg v. Stone · filed 2002-12-27

The Supreme Court has held that Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity. ... The Court finds that the plaintiffs complaint makes clear that he is seeking declarations that Stone’s past conduct violated federal law. He is therefore seeking only retrospective declaratory relief. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his remaining claims.

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

McGuire v. Ameritech Services, Inc. · filed 2003-01-15

In his official capacity, Wilkinson, too, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, insofar as Plaintiffs seek damages.

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

Porter v. Jones · filed 2003-02-06

Jones’s argument that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages against state officials in their individual capacities also fails. ... “[T]he Eleventh Amendment does not erect a barrier against suits to impose individual and personal liability on state officials under § 1983.” ... The Eleventh Amendment does not bar Plaintiffs’ suit.

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar § 1983 claims for declaratory and prospective injunctive relief.

Spargo v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct · filed 2003-02-20

The Eleventh Amendment does not preclude plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to § 1983.

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

Channer v. Murray · filed 2003-02-20

Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Because an award of damages against Blumenthal in his official capacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the claims against Blumenthal in his official capacity are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not override a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state and its agencies cannot be sued under it in federal court without consent.

Bland v. New York · filed 2003-03-07

The Eleventh Amendment renders OCA and the State immune from suit here under § 1983 or under state law because the State of New York has not consented to suit in federal court, and because no express override of State statutory authority has been enacted by Congress in association with § 1983.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a § 1983 suit against a state itself regardless of whether the plaintiff seeks injunctive or declaratory relief.

Taggart v. State Bar · filed 2003-03-13

Furthermore, we reject Taggart’s contention that the Bar’s immunity does not extend to his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, because Eleventh Amendment immunity does not depend on the type of relief sought when the state itself is the only party subject to suit.

Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim seeking prospective injunctive relief against a state official.

Office of Protection & Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities v. Armstrong · filed 2003-03-31

Finally, Armstrong argues that he is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on the § 1983 claim. There is an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity where a party seeks only prospective injunctive relief. ... Since Connecticut P & A seeks this very type of relief, the Court finds that such immunity is not in order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woods v. Tennessee · filed 2003-06-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gravitt v. Brown · filed 2003-07-18

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

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

Manders v. Lee · filed 2003-07-28

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

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

Davidson v. NHDOC · filed 2003-08-04

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtemanche v. Gregels · filed 2003-10-23

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

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

Johnson v. Irvine · filed 2003-10-24

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

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

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

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

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

Jackson v. Peters · filed 2003-11-12

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

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

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

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

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

Derrick v. Ward · filed 2004-01-08

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

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

Allen v. Egan · filed 2004-01-16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davidson v. Stockton · filed 2004-03-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferrell v. Busbee · filed 1981-08-19

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

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

Robinson v. Worthington · filed 1982-04-28

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

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

Meeker v. Manning · filed 1982-06-10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brinkman v. Gilligan · filed 1985-05-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 1983 does not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Rozek v. Topolnicki · filed 1989-01-12

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

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

Ortega v. Schramm · filed 1991-01-28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brown v. Manning · filed 1985-03-06

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

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

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

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

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Neal v. Lewis · filed 2004-07-20

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

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

Ford v. Reynolds · filed 2004-07-23

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

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

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

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

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

Ernst v. Roberts · filed 2004-08-12

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

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

Ernst v. Roberts · filed 2004-08-12

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

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

Ward v. Murphy · filed 2004-08-16

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

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

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

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

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

Parrilla v. Santiago · filed 2004-09-27

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

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

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

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

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

Moore v. Morris · filed 2004-11-02

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

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

Nichols v. Rysavy · filed 1987-02-25

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

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

Nichols v. Rysavy · filed 1987-01-15

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

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

Milbouer v. Keppler · filed 1986-09-16

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

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

Biggs v. Block · filed 1986-03-20

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

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

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

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