42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krause v. Rhodes · filed 1972-11-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crutcher v. Kentucky · filed 1980-07-21

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

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

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

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

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

Ward v. Hekman · filed 1980-09-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friedman v. Weiner · filed 1981-06-03

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

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

Irwin v. Calhoun · filed 1981-09-16

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

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

Laskaris v. Thornburgh · filed 1981-10-05

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

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

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

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

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

McConnell v. Critchlow · filed 1981-11-09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jackson v. Hayakawa · filed 1982-08-03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strange v. Chumas · filed 1983-09-30

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

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

Lachica v. Jaffe · filed 1983-10-12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cook v. Florida · filed 1985-04-24

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

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

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

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

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

Crane v. Texas · filed 1985-05-02

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

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

Patteson v. Johnson · filed 1985-05-03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeSantis v. Ricci · filed 1985-06-28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everett v. Schramm · filed 1985-09-06

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

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

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

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

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

Miller v. Rutgers · filed 1985-10-16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green v. Mansour · filed 1986-01-27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taylor v. Seamans · filed 1986-07-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lewis v. Kelchner · filed 1986-10-30

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

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

Jeffries v. Celeste · filed 1986-12-11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hemphill v. Moore · filed 1987-06-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 1983 does not unequivocally abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so state agencies and officials sued in their official capacities are immune from such claims absent waiver.

Harvey v. Williams · filed 1988-02-10

None of these bases for suit, however, contain a sufficient, unequivocal expression of Congressional intent to abrogate the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Shannon v. Bepko · filed 1988-03-14

Furthermore, as was explained earlier, any analogy to Title VII for Eleventh Amendment purposes is erroneous given the fact that immunity has been con-gressionally removed for Title VII purposes, but remains intact for section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 permits personal-capacity damages claims against state officials even when the state indemnifies them; indemnification does not extend the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity to those officials.

Griess v. State of Colorado · filed 1988-03-15

In addition to being unacceptable from a practical standpoint, such a result would violate the principle that "[c]onduct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 or Sec. 1985(3) cannot be immunized by state law." ... Accordingly, we hold that the assumption of an indemnification obligation on the part of the state does not confer a derivative constitutional immunity upon its indemnified employees.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Mazur v. Hymas · filed 1988-03-21

Plaintiff’s complaint also states that defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Claims for damages against states under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred by the eleventh amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their personal capacities are not barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Schweitzer v. UNIV. OF TEXAS HEALTH CTR. AT TYLER · filed 1988-04-14

Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a cause of action for damages, based on § 1983, against a defendant in his personal (or “individual”) capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so relief against a state agency that is the state’s alter ego is barred absent state consent.

P. Sidney Neuwirth, D.D.S. v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry · filed 1988-05-23

Because § 1983 does not negate a state’s eleventh amendment immunity, ... and the Board is the alter ego of the State of Louisiana, which has not consented to suit, ... relief is barred against the Board.

Section 1983 does not allow retroactive monetary relief against a state official in an official capacity when the award must be paid from the state treasury.

Echevarria-Gonzalez v. Antonio Gonzalez-Chapel, Etc. · filed 1988-06-10

In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the federal courts’ remedial power “may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury.”

Section 1983 permits personal-capacity claims against state officials who carry out unconstitutional state policy; the Eleventh Amendment does not shield them from personal liability.

Farid v. Harold J. Smith, Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, Individually and in His Official C · filed 1988-06-22

To summarize, we hold that regardless of whether the mailroom policy at issue in this case was promulgated by the State Department of Corrections or by Superintendent Smith, Smith cannot invoke the eleventh amendment to protect himself from personal liability under § 1983.

A state parole board is immune from a suit for damages under § 1983 by the Eleventh Amendment.

Carson v. Michigan Parole Board · filed 1988-07-27

The district court correctly concluded that defendant is immune from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 under the eleventh amendment.

Section 1983 permits prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials enforcing a state law despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Zielasko v. State of Ohio · filed 1988-08-18

The eleventh amendment does not, in all cases, however, bar suits brought in federal court seeking prospective injunctive relief. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). In this case plaintiffs seek to have a state constitutional provision declared unconstitutional and to enjoin the enforcement of that provision as to them in the future. This type of relief may be awarded and to the extent of these questions only, this suit is not barred by the eleventh amendment.

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

Santiago v. Lane · filed 1988-08-26

Therefore, Childers’ suit is barred to the extent that it seeks money damages against the defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities despite a state statute indemnifying those officials.

Blaylock v. Schwinden · filed 1988-09-07

A state indemnification statute does not automatically extend immunity to state officials. ... Thus, the eleventh amendment does not bar plaintiffs’ claim for damages against the defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 claims against state agencies are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Besser v. Richard P. Seiter, John F. Kinkela, Walter Echols, Ohio Prison Industries, University Hospital, Nor · filed 1988-10-04

The district court correctly found the claims against Ohio Prison Industries and University Hospital barred by the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution as these entities are agencies of the State of Ohio.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages suits against state officials in their official capacities.

Grass Roots Organizing Workshop (GROW) v. Campbell · filed 1988-11-10

Congress has not abrogated the states’ immunity to suits brought under section 1983.

A § 1983 plaintiff cannot obtain declaratory or injunctive relief against a state officer when there is no ongoing violation of federal law.

Toney v. Burris · filed 1988-11-15

Having found that the regulations and procedures as amended comport with due process requirements, it becomes necessary to deny plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief. As the Court of Appeals stated in its decision “[i]f the new rules comport with due process, the defendant is correct in his assertion that the eleventh amendment bars the court from granting declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiffs.”

Section 1983 does not allow retroactive benefits to be recovered from state officials sued in their official capacities when payment would come from a state unemployment fund, even if that fund is segregated.

Esparza v. Valdez · filed 1988-11-29

Thus, no matter what fund a judgment for past damages comes from, it is still a damage award against the state. We hold that relief such as that claimed by the plaintiffs is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities without an Eleventh Amendment bar.

Blaylock v. Schwinden · filed 1988-12-14

Thus, the eleventh amendment does not bar plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 claims for equitable relief against a state are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

DeLong v. Brumbaugh · filed 1989-01-12

Plaintiffs constitutional claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for equitable relief, predicated on the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

In a § 1983 suit against a state department, Eleventh Amendment immunity absolutely bars money damages claims, but a request for injunctive relief is not absolutely barred.

Jones v. Ehlert · filed 1989-01-31

The defendants argue that the claims against the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services should be dismissed because they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, only claims for money damages are absolutely barred and in this case the plaintiff is also asking for in-junctive relief.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Section 1983 damages claims against a state, a state university that is an arm of the state, and state officials sued in their official capacities.

Seibert v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Health Sciences Center · filed 1989-02-10

The Supreme Court expressly has held that the eleventh amendment prohibits damage suits against states under section 1983. ... Consequently, the district court properly dismissed the damage actions against the State, the University, and the individual defendants acting in their official capacities.

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

Bronfman v. State of Mo. · filed 1989-02-28

It is clear that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the states.

Section 1983 damages claims against the University of Arkansas and its officials are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the university is a state instrumentality.

Assaad-Faltas v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · filed 1989-03-01

As an instrumentality of the State of Arkansas, the University of Arkansas and its officials are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from damage claims brought under 42 U.S. C. § 1983.

A state department of corrections is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages claims under Section 1983.

Garner v. State of North Carolina, Hazel Keith, Department of Corrections, Defendants · filed 1989-03-01

We note, however, that the department was entitled to eleventh amendment immunity from Garner's damages claims.

Section 1983 relief against a state official is barred by the Eleventh Amendment when it seeks retroactive benefits requiring state treasury expenditures and no prospective relief supports ancillary notice.

Cotton v. Mansour · filed 1989-03-20

Because the relief ordered by the district court against the defendant was retroactive, would require expenditures from the State treasury, contained no prospective relief to which a Quern-type notice could be ancillary and was inappropriate for declaratory relief, we hold that the relief requested by plaintiff and granted by the district court is barred by the eleventh amendment.

A § 1983 claim for prospective relief against a state official is not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, but a claim against the state itself is barred.

Alessi Ex Rel. Alessi v. Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare · filed 1989-03-27

I find that Ms. Alessi’s claim against the Commonwealth is barred by the Eleventh Amendment; ... her claim against John White, Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, however, is not barred.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state or its agencies' immunity from suit without consent.

Jerome H. Begun, M.D. v. Ohio State Medical Board, State of Ohio · filed 1989-03-29

A state or its agencies may not be sued without its consent. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986); Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-100 (1984). This immunity is not abrogated by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Damages claims under § 1983 against state officials for conduct in their official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Giannini v. Real · filed 1989-04-20

The eleventh amendment bars suits for damages brought against state officials acting in their official capacity. ... Plaintiff’s claims for damages based on the state defendant’s official conduct are thus barred.

Section 1983 permits a suit for prospective relief against state officials who are sufficiently connected to the challenged conduct despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Standard Alaska Production Company v. Schaible · filed 1989-04-21

The Eleventh Amendment does not, however, preclude a suit to enjoin a state official from violating the federal constitution. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 159-160, 28 S.Ct. at 453-454; Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 101-103, 104 S.Ct. at 908-909. ... The required connection with the enforcement of the act, under the doctrine announced in Ex Parte Young, is therefore present. We find that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the Producers from seeking relief in the federal courts and we affirm the district court's denial of appellees' motion to dismiss under Eleventh Amendment state immunity.

Section 1983 permits a suit to enjoin state officials from violating the federal Constitution despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Standard Alaska Production Co. v. Schaible · filed 1989-04-21

The Eleventh Amendment does not, however, preclude a suit to enjoin a state official from violating the federal constitution. ... We find that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the Producers from seeking relief in the federal courts and we affirm the district court’s denial of appellees’ motion to dismiss under Eleventh Amendment state immunity.

State indemnification of an officer does not give that officer Eleventh Amendment immunity from an individual-capacity § 1983 claim.

Muhammed v. Board of Supervisors of Southern University · filed 1989-05-17

The fact that Louisiana, for reasons beyond the ken of this court, has voluntarily elected to indemnify those of its officers who deny or deprive people of their federal civil rights, in no way constitutes that officer as an “arm” or “alter ego” of the state for the Eleventh Amendment purposes.

A Section 1983 claim against a public medical college is not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the college is not an arm of the state.

York v. Jones · filed 1989-07-10

After considering all of the relevant factors enumerated by the Third Circuit in Kovats, the Court concludes that MCHR is not an arm of the Commonwealth entitled to eleventh amendment immunity.

In a § 1983 suit against a state official in an official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages paid from state funds but permits prospective injunctive relief for unconstitutional conduct.

Gregg v. Lawson · filed 1989-11-07

The Court thus concludes that while the plaintiff's claim for monetary damages is barred the the Eleventh Amendment, his claims for declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of the revised general order and for prospective injunctive relief requiring the defendant to reinstate his name on the rotational call list, which would neither operate against the State itself nor result in the expenditure of funds that were not already budgeted for this purpose, are not barred by this provision of the Constitution.

Section 1983 claims against a state corrections department and its central classification board are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Yost v. Young · filed 1989-12-07

We further hold that the district court correctly dismissed defendants the Virginia Department of Corrections and the Central Classification Board on eleventh amendment immunity grounds.

Damages claims under § 1983 against public university trustees in their official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Shelton v. The Trustees of Indiana University · filed 1989-12-08

After a bench trial, the district judge correctly dismissed the claim for damages against the trustees in their official capacity as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, ... and dismissed the rest of the suit on the ground that Shelton had been denied rehire “not because of this ‘speech,’ but because his behavior toward his supervisors was belligerent, insubordinate, and reflected a poor understanding of his role as a resident assistant.”

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

Chaka v. Franzen · filed 1989-12-18

The eleventh amendment does not shield a state public official from potential liability when he is sued in his personal or individual capacity (as contrasted with his official capacity).

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for damages claims against a state or an arm of the state.

Ware v. Wyoming Board of Law Examiners · filed 1997-08-05

“In enacting section 1983, Congress did not intend to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity and grant jurisdiction to seek damages against a state.” ... Thus, defendant has immunity from suit in federal court for plaintiffs count 6 and it must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit retroactive monetary relief against a state official sued in an official capacity when the award would come from state funds and the state has not consented to suit.

LCS Services, Inc. v. Caperton · filed 1997-08-15

Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment bars this action as limited by the allegations of Count I.A.(1) of the Complaint inasmuch as the plaintiffs may not recover retroactive monetary relief for fees collected under a state statutory scheme now repealed.

A state court agency is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Terrall v. County of Washoe · filed 1997-08-29

Because this link to the state court system entitled CASA to Eleventh Amendment immunity as an agency of the state, the district court properly dismissed Terrall's claim against CASA.

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

Suarez Corporation Industries v. Mcgraw · filed 1997-09-11

Count III, which seeks money damages against McGraw and Rodd in their personal capacities, like the state law counts discussed above, but in this instance pursuant to an alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is likewise not barred. As a general rule, damages against state officers in their individual capacities are permissible.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for a state university, so claims against it for equitable or monetary relief are barred.

Middlebrooks v. University of Maryland at College Park · filed 1997-09-23

However, Congress has not taken such action for § 1981 or § 1983 claims. Thus, Plaintiffs §§ 1981 and 1983 claims against the University, both for equitable and monetary relief, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Whane v. State of Kan. · filed 1997-09-25

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

Section 1983 permits federal-court claims against New Mexico school districts and their governing boards because they are not arms of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Duke v. Grady Municipal Schools · filed 1997-10-20

Because this most important factor suggests there should be no Eleventh Amendment immunity, and because most of the other relevant factors point the same way, we hold that school districts and their governing boards in New Mexico are not arms of the state, and they are accordingly not shielded by the Eleventh Amendment from liability for a § 1983 action in federal court.

A state corrections department that is an arm of the State has Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit.

Jones v. Bishop · filed 1997-10-23

Since it appears that counsel also intended to move on behalf of Sing Sing, and Sing Sing, as part of DOCS, a state agency, is considered an arm of the State and stands in the same position as the State, the Court concludes that it should sua sponte dismiss all claims against Sing Sing as well.

A state official sued in his official capacity on a Section 1983 claim is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Steven J. Henry William W. Roche v. State of Montana Charles H. Recht, Attorney Mike Cooney, Secretary of State · filed 1997-11-06

Finally, we agree with the district court that Henry and Roche brought their section 1983 claim against Cooney in his official capacity as Secretary of State, and thus, Cooney is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991); Eaglesmith v. Ward, 73 F.3d 857, 859 (9th Cir.1996).

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a California school district treated as a state agency cannot be sued under it.

Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School District · filed 1997-11-10

Eleventh Amendment immunity has not been abrogated with respect to section 1983 claims. ... It is clear that SFUSD may not be sued under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

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

Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 45,581 Bethesda Lutheran Homes and Services, Inc. v. Leean · filed 1997-11-14

Insofar as the suit seeks damages from a state official in his official capacity, it is clearly barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state college are barred when the college is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Mosley v. Northern VA Comm Col · filed 1997-11-18

Finally, although the district court did not specifically address Mosley's § 1983 claims alleging denial of due process and equal pro- tection, we find any such claims to be without merit. First, the Col- lege is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 actions against state officials in their official capacities for declaratory and injunctive relief are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under Ex parte Young.

Hill v. Butterworth · filed 1997-12-15

Regarding the fourth issue, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that, under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Eleventh Amendment does not serve as a bar to the instant action.

A § 1983 claim for monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the state treasury would pay the judgment.

Lynn v. West · filed 1998-01-13

The Eleventh Amendment bars Lynn's § 1983 claim for monetary damages against West and Faulkner in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against state officials cannot proceed under the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity when the alleged violation has ended and the relief sought would undo completed state action.

Republic of Paraguay v. Allen · filed 1998-01-22

The action included a joint claim based directly upon Paraguay’s treaty rights and, for Dos Santos, a parallel claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of his rights under federal treaty law by the conduct of Commonwealth officials taken under color of state law. ... But, we conclude that because the violation of federal treaty law was not ongoing when this action was filed, nor the relief sought prospective, the Eleventh Amendment does not permit the federal courts to provide a remedy against the Commonwealth officials sued in this action for their conceded past violations.

Section 1983 claims against a state university that is an arm of the state are barred by immunity when no injunctive relief is sought.

Henderson v. University of CO · filed 1998-02-02

Nonetheless, because the University of Colorado is plainly an arm of the State and no injunctive relief was sought, the remaining reasons for dismissal are sound.

Section 1983 claims against an unconsenting state in federal court are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Jones v. The State of Texas · filed 1998-02-16

Johnnie and Harvella Jones request permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against the State of Texas. ... Furthermore, the Joneses’ civil rights lawsuit against the State of Texas is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Eleventh Amendment confers absolute immunity on an unconsenting state from suits brought in federal court by the state's own citizens.

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

Burrell v. City University of New York · filed 1998-02-26

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

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims for monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Morgan v. State of Ala. · filed 1998-03-18

Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment bars Morgan’s § 1983 claim for monetary damages against Butts in his official capacity. Therefore, the court finds that Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs § 1983 claim for monetary damages against Defendant Butts in his official capacity is due to be granted.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state instrumentality are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Talib v. Gilley · filed 1998-04-15

As an instrumentality of the state, the TDCJ-ID is immune from a suit for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 damages claim against a state is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state waives that immunity.

Inacom Corp. v. Com. of Mass. · filed 1998-04-15

Thus, the Eleventh Amendment remains as a bar to Inacom’s claim for damages against the Commonwealth unless some other ground of overcoming the bar can be shown. ... The Commonwealth’s conduct in this case does not support a determination that the Commonwealth has waived or is precluded from asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity.

An Illinois sheriff sued in his official capacity under § 1983 for law enforcement conduct cannot claim Eleventh Amendment immunity as a state officer.

DeGenova v. Sheriff of DuPage County · filed 1998-05-06

What we must determine is whether in this capacity the sheriff is an arm of the state or acts as an independent constitutional officer. We conclude that in Illinois the sheriff is an independent constitutional officer at the county level and, as a result, is not protected by the Eleventh Amendment.

Absent a waiver, Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state and its officials acting in their official capacities.

Morstad v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation · filed 1998-06-26

Graham clearly indicates that, absent a waiver, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes the state and its officials acting in their official capacities from § 1983 liability.

A § 1983 claim against a state university may be dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.

Morse v. Regents of the University of Colorado · filed 1998-08-17

The district court dismissed the state breach-of-policy claim and the section 1983 claim for lack of jurisdiction based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... We have reviewed Plaintiffs’ section 1983, section 1985, and state breach of policy claims and conclude that they were properly dismissed.

An official-capacity Section 1983 claim against a local sheriff is not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Knight v. Vernon · filed 1998-09-08

This court will thus follow controlling Fourth Circuit authority and hold that Sheriff Vernon does not have Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

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

Schallop v. New York State Department of Law · filed 1998-09-14

Thus, the section 1983 claims in the first, second and fifth causes of action against the DoL must be dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The damages claims asserted in those causes of action against the other defendants in their official capacities must also be dismissed on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity for a state or an arm of the state.

Boston v. Tanner · filed 1998-10-27

The court need not address this issue because it is faced with a jurisdictional bar created by the Eleventh Amendment. Although Congress has the power with respect to the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, ... the Supreme Court has recognized that in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ... Congress did not override this jurisdictional bar.

Section 1983 does not waive a state’s sovereign immunity from suit.

Aguilar v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 1998-11-13

Section 1983 does not waive the states’ sovereign immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 338 n.7 (1979), and Texas has not consented to this suit.

In a § 1983 suit, state funding of a disputed contract alone does not establish that a school district or board of education has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Montauk Bus Co., Inc. v. Utica City School Dist. · filed 1998-11-24

In the present case, defendants arguably address one of the six initial factors— how the entity is funded. They make no effort to address the other five factors. ... Importantly, defendants nowhere allege that this suit would put the state’s integrity or treasury at risk. Consequently, I find that the School District and Board of Education are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against a state.

Forney v. State of Oklahoma · filed 1998-12-07

Under the Eleventh Amendment, the State of Oklahoma is immune from § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state correctional facility when the state retains Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Beeson v. Fishkill Correctional Facility · filed 1998-12-10

The Supreme Court has held that a state cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless it has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress has passed legislation legitimately overriding that immunity. ... Accordingly, because New York State has not waived its immunity, ... and Congress has not otherwise taken it away, Fishkill is immune from suit in this court.

Section 1983 allows a suit for prospective relief against state officers to stop unconstitutional conduct despite the Eleventh Amendment.

Continental Insurance v. Illinois Department of Transportation · filed 1983-06-08

Hence this suit is no more barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Currie, Federal Jurisdiction 172 (1981), than any other federal court action brought under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), and the thousands of cases following it, to enjoin unconstitutional behavior of state officers.

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

Ellis v. University of Kansas Medical Center · filed 1998-12-21

The Supreme Court has previously held that Congress did not abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Thus, because Kansas has not unmistakably waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Congress has not abrogated that immunity, the Eleventh Amendment bars Ellis’s suit against Kansas and its state agencies in the federal courts.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for a state university that is an arm of the state.

Demuren v. Old Dominion University · filed 1999-01-12

In accordance with these decisions, this court holds that ODU is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983.

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

Veloz v. New York · filed 1999-01-21

Furthermore, the provisions of § 1983 were not intended to override a state’s immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against Georgia prosecutors in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when they act as state officials.

McClendon v. May · filed 1999-02-03

In conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Owens, Georgia state law, and an examination of the alleged misconduct at issue here demonstrate that Martin and May were acting as state officials rather than county officials. As such they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in their official capacities. Accordingly, their Motion to Dismiss all claims against them in their official capacity is GRANTED.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state university, its governing board, and its recognized student government.

Rounds v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education · filed 1999-02-23

In summary, we hold that the Students’ claims against the Board of Higher Education, the University, and the Associated Students are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.