42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 claims against a state university, its governing board, and its recognized student government are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

The Eleventh Amendment therefore bars suit against the University and the Board of Higher Education alike. To the extent that the Students assert a § 1983 claim against the Associated Students, this claim also is barred, as the Associated Students' status as the recognized student government at the University allows it to claim the same Eleventh Amendment immunity that shields the University itself.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state immunity, and official-capacity claims against state employees are barred when the state has not waived that immunity.

Walker v. Scott · filed 1999-03-09

Texas has not waived its immunity from suit in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, 3 nor has Congress abrogated immunity of the states in enacting this legislation.4 Further, because claims against state employees in their official capacity are considered claims against their office, these claims are barred for the same reasons.

Section 1983 damages claims against individually named state officers are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the plaintiff seeks damages from the officers rather than the state.

Harper v. Scott · filed 1984-01-06

Addressing the Eleventh Amendment immunity argument, the magistrate finds that plaintiff seeks damages against the individually named defendants, not against the state, and, accordingly, they are not entitled to immunity. ... The court accepts the magistrate’s recommendation and, accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.

A § 1983 claim against the Orleans Parish district attorney in his official capacity is not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the office is not an arm of the state.

Hudson v. City of New Orleans · filed 1999-05-13

After a very careful review, we conclude that the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office is not an arm of the state and therefore not entitled to the benefits of the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Miller v. Maddox · filed 1999-05-28

Plaintiff's claims against Marble in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Planet Earth Entertainment, Inc. v. Edwards · filed 1999-07-16

Given that Diamonds’ § 1983 claim is directed toward the LCC Chairman, in his official capacity, and that it does not seek money damages, the Eleventh Amendment presents no impediment.

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar § 1983 claims against state university officials in their individual capacities.

Goodisman v. Lytle · filed 1984-01-24

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar his claims against University officials in their individual capacities.

In a § 1983 action, Eleventh Amendment immunity bars official-capacity claims for retrospective monetary relief payable from the state treasury.

Floyd v. Thompson · filed 1999-09-03

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state employees acting in their official capacities that seek retrospective monetary damages payable from the state treasury, as opposed to the state employees’ own pockets.

State officials sued in their official capacities may face § 1983 claims for prospective relief from constitutional violations despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Salcido Ex Rel. Gilliland v. Woodbury County, Iowa · filed 1999-09-16

Thus, there is no Eleventh Amendment immunity for these defendant state officials with respect to Salcido’s § 1983 claims for violation of his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and the portion of the state defendants’ motion to dismiss asserting such immunity will be denied.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Champagne v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office · filed 1999-09-22

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979); and Louisiana has not waived it, LA. REV. STAT. 13:5106(A).

Section 1983 cannot be used in federal court to enforce EMTALA rights against an arm of the state that has not waived sovereign immunity.

Ward Ex Rel. Ward v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services · filed 1999-10-07

In an earlier Memorandum Opinion [Doc. 68], this Court held that EMTA-LA does provide the basis for an action under Section 1983. This would be true, but for Eleventh Amendment immunity as it has recently been expounded by the Supreme Court. Under the new cases, a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim against a state actor, where the basis of the claim is statutory, rather than constitutional, and the state has not voluntarily, expressly, and unequivocally consented to such jurisdiction.

Section 1983 suits against state agencies that are part of the State are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Ibrahim v. New York State Department of Health · filed 1984-01-26

The four named New York State agencies in this case are clearly “part of the State.” Thus, plaintiff’s § 1983 suit against them must be dismissed.

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

Snow v. Nevada Department of Prisons · filed 1984-01-30

42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of a state.

Section 1983 personal-capacity suits against state officials in federal court are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Halstead v. Motorcycle Safety Foundation Inc. · filed 1999-10-29

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar § 1983 personal capacity suits against state officials in federal court.

Section 1983 permits prospective relief against a state official who has a connection with enforcing the challenged law despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Culinary Workers Union v. Del Papa · filed 1999-12-27

Nevertheless, an exception may apply, namely that the state official sued “must have some connection with the enforcement of the act” to avoid making that official a mere representative of the state. ... We have no difficulty, however, concluding that the requisite “connection” exists here for the same reasons that the union has demonstrated that a case and controversy exists.

Kentucky school district defendants sued under § 1983 are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Cockrel v. Shelby County School District · filed 2000-01-28

This Court, has held that Kentucky defendants in this type of action are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... In light of Blackburn, Defendants’ arguments for Eleventh Amendment immunity deserve no extended treatment.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Burgos v. Department of Children & Families · filed 2000-02-07

However, Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity suit for injunctive relief against state officials despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Meadow Valley Contractors, Inc. v. Johnson · filed 2000-03-20

States, however, are not considered to be “persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and are therefore immune from suit. ... Nevertheless, an exception to this rule of immunity applies to actions for injunctive relief, ... such as the one before this Court. ... Accordingly, this Court will deny Defendants’ requests for dismissal based upon Eleventh Amendment grounds.

Section 1983 does not abrogate States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Springer v. State of Alabama · filed 2000-03-24

Likewise, his assertion that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 abrogates the ... Eleventh Amendment is baseless.

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

Jenkins v. Colorado Mental · filed 2000-03-30

The district court dismissed Mr. Jenkins’ claims against the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo, Colorado (CMHIP) as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because CMHIP, as an agency of the State of Colorado, is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... The district court order of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

Section 1983 provides no remedy in federal court against the state when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies, though individual-capacity suits against state officials remain available.

Local 851 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Thyssen Haniel Logistics, Inc. · filed 2000-03-30

Unfortunately, the Eleventh Amendment as presently interpreted affords no remedy in this court against the state, no matter how egregious the alleged conduct of state officials. Petitioner’s only avenues of redress lie in state court or against Vacco and Quinlan in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 allows a claim for equitable relief against state officials in their official capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages.

Borrero v. Correa · filed 2000-04-10

It is well settled that neither a State, a state agency nor a state official acting in her or his official capacity may be sued for damages in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. ... Because plaintiff is seeking only equitable relief, the Eleventh Amendment is inapposite in this case.

Section 1983 permits an official capacity suit against an Illinois sheriff for jail management because the sheriff acts as a county officer and lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity.

DeGenova, Mario v. Sheriff DuPage · filed 2000-04-13

In conclusion, since Illinois sheriffs are county officers when they manage the jail, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar this official capacity suit.

A community college that is not an arm of the state lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim.

Griner v. Southeast Community College · filed 2000-05-04

Thus, I reach a conclusion opposite from that reached in Hadley, and I find that SCC is not an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from Gri-ner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment claim for money damages.

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

Wellman v. Trustees of Purdue University · filed 1984-03-15

Therefore, after carefully considering all of the above, it is the conclusion of this court that Purdue University and its Board ... of Trustees are instrumentalities of the State of Indiana, and therefore entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not itself abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity from an award of retroactive damages against a state.

Arminio v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (In Re Arminio) · filed 1984-03-16

Standing alone, § 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1144, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1978), and as previously noted, the Bankruptcy Code does not supply the necessary statutory authority in this proceeding.

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

Johnson v. University of Cincinnati, Joseph A. Steger, and Donald C. Harrison · filed 2000-06-01

Regarding Plaintiffs claims brought against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983, the University, as an arm of the State, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment because it is well-settled that a plaintiff is precluded from directly suing a State in federal court on these claims.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for states and state agencies in federal court.

Brin v. Kansas · filed 2000-06-09

The State of Kansas and FHSU correctly argue that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on the plaintiffs claims, if any, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Salman v. Rose · filed 2000-07-03

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against State officials sued in their official capacity because an official-capacity lawsuit, is in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the State.

State officials facing a § 1983 claim for prospective relief cannot invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity to shield unconstitutional conduct.

Michigan Injured Workers v. Blanchard · filed 1986-10-03

Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), clearly provides that when state officials act unconstitutionally they are stripped of their immunity and the Eleventh Amendment does not serve to shield them.

Alabama sheriffs operating jails are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 claims brought against them in their official capacity.

Taylor v. City of Mobile · filed 2000-08-11

Thus, we affirm summary judgment for the Sheriff of Mobile County on Eleventh Amendment-immunity grounds.

Section 1983 does not allow a Medicaid provider to obtain retrospective relief in federal court that the Eleventh Amendment bars.

FL Assoc. of Rehab. Fac. v. State of FL Dept. of H · filed 2000-09-01

Wilder did not hold that a provider can sue under section 1983 in federal court to obtain an order imposing retrospective relief that otherwise would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Das v. Ohio State University · filed 2000-10-04

Here, Ohio State is immune from suit under § 1983. The Court therefore GRANTS summary judgment to the Defendant on the Plaintiffs claim of national origin discrimination brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

State departments are immune from § 1983 suits in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Henry v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities · filed 2000-11-03

As an arm of the State of Ohio, the Ohio Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment on claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983.

A § 1983 damages claim against a district attorney in his official capacity is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Harmon v. Davis · filed 2000-12-19

Further, the magistrate judge also properly applied the well-established doctrine of Eleventh Amendment immunity in dismissing Mr. Harmon’s complaint against the district attorney named therein.

State agencies and state officials sued in their official capacities are immune from § 1983 claims for monetary damages.

Allen v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction · filed 2001-01-19

Here, ODRC and its employees sued in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from claims for monetary damages brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity.

Robertson v. Huffman · filed 2001-02-23

It is well-established that Congress did not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity when it created a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A state court sued under § 1983 is an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Howard v. Virginia · filed 2001-03-15

A state court is an arm of the state, entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Accordingly, the district court properly held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Howard’s claim.

The Arizona Supreme Court, its chief judge, and the state bar association are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from monetary damages in a § 1983 action.

Gilchrist v. Arizona Supreme Court · filed 2001-03-26

The district court properly dismissed Gilchrist’s claims for monetary damages against the Arizona Supreme Court, its chief judge, and the state bar association because they are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective reinstatement against the state official who directs the agency, under the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity.

Sternadel v. Scott · filed 2001-05-07

However, because of the very nature of the relief sought–- reinstatement to her job as a parole officer in the TDCJ, which is under Scott’s direction as Executive Director of TDCJ–-Scott is the properly named party and is subject to the Young exception to sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a state university and its employees in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity to the extent they seek damages or declaratory relief that is not ancillary to injunctive relief.

Isham v. Wilcox · filed 2001-05-14

Thus, plaintiff’s claims against the University, that is, his claims against the Regents and University employees in their official capacities, are barred to the extent he seeks damages and declaratory relief, except to the extent his request for declaratory relief is ancillary to his request for injunctive relief.

Section 1983 claims against a state supreme court are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Madden v. Vermont Supreme Court · filed 2001-05-17

The District Court properly dismissed the complaint and denied Mr. Madden’s Rule 59 motion after correctly determining that Mr. Madden’s claim against the Vermont Supreme Court was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a California county for a sheriff’s management of its local jail are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Fitzwater v. City of San Francisco · filed 2001-05-24

As a result, the City and County of San Francisco are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on Fitzwater’s § 1983 claim.

A state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 claim merely by removing the case to federal court when its attorney general lacks authority to waive that immunity.

Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia · filed 2001-05-24

Therefore, we hold that the defendants did not waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity by removal of the case.

The Eleventh Amendment bars damages suits against a state under § 1983.

Owens v. State of New York Attorney General · filed 2001-05-31

Moreover, the Eleventh Amendment provides the state with immunity from suit for damages under § 1983.

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

Williamson v. Georgia Department of Human Resources · filed 2001-07-13

Aside from the fact that her Complaint mentions nothing of Defendants’ liability under § 1983, Plaintiff ignores the rule that § 1983 also failed to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A state that has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity cannot be sued under Section 1983 in federal court.

Jenkins v. Tennessee · filed 2001-08-08

The sole defendant in this case, the State of Tennessee, has immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from federal lawsuits.

A state agency is immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court unless the state waives its immunity or consents to suit.

Sims v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2001-08-08

Because the MDOC is a state agency and the state of Michigan has not consented to civil rights suits in the federal courts, the MDOC is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 actions may not be brought against a state protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eddins v. Summers · filed 2001-08-09

However, § 1983 actions may not be brought against the state of Tennessee, which is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Ramey v. GA. Dept. of Corrections · filed 2001-08-20

Second, Congress has not abrogated state immunity through § 1983.

Section 1983 damages claims are barred when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Abate of Georgia, Inc. v. State of Georgia · filed 2001-09-13

Plaintiff’s claims for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against a state and its employees in their official capacities, while individual-capacity claims against those employees may proceed.

Baughman v. Saffle · filed 2001-10-17

As the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff’s claims against the State and its employees in their official capacities, the district court should consider only plaintiff’s claims against these defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 claims against a state education department are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

BOARD OF EDUC., PINE PLAINS SCHOOL v. Engwiller · filed 2001-10-19

First, as against the State Education Department itself, the Section 1983 claim does not lie on Eleventh Amendment grounds. It has long been settled that the SED is immune from suit brought under Section 1983.

Section 1983 claims for prospective relief against a state officer are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the state itself is not named.

Major League Baseball v. Butterworth · filed 2001-12-27

Because plaintiffs seek only prospective relief and name as the defendant only a state officer, not the state in its own name, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the action, under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).

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

Williams v. Leslie · filed 2002-01-04

A suit against a state official in his official capacity seeking monetary damages for violations of § 1983 is barred by the Eleventh Amendment because such a suit is, in fact, a suit against the state.

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

Graves v. Stone · filed 2002-01-17

Graves has made no showing that the Department has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity or that Congress abrogated the state's immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against DART are not barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity because DART is not an arm of the state.

Enterprizes v. Dallas Area Rapid · filed 2002-02-07

Having previously ruled that DART is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment protection, there are no longer grounds left upon which to affirm the district court’s dismissal of claims due to sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 claims seeking prospective injunctive relief against state officers in their official capacities are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Hason v. Medical Board of California · filed 2002-02-12

Thus, under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, Dr. Hason’s section 1983 claims seeking prospective injunctive relief from the individual defendants are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The State of Utah, its legislature, and its governor sued in his official capacity have Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages claims under § 1983.

Peterson v. State of Utah · filed 2002-03-11

In his complaints, plaintiff alleges that defendants have violated his rights under federal law by interfering with his efforts to store spent nuclear fuel in the State of Utah, and he seeks to recover damages from defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s complaints sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(ii) and (iii), finding: (1) that the State of Utah, the Utah Legislature, and Governor Leavitt, in his official capacity, are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits for damages; and (2) that, even if plaintiff is suing Governor Leavitt in his individual capacity, the governor is entitled to qualified immunity because “the law is not clearly settled that plaintiff has standing or a basis to claim a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for the conduct alleged.” R., Doc. No. 6 at 1. We agree with the district court’s analysis, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth in the orders entered by the district court on May 2 and 3, 2001.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 suits against state employees in their official capacities.

Mello v. Nevada · filed 2002-03-19

To the extent Mello sued state employees Crews, Neil and Rohrs in their official capacities, the Eleventh Amendment barred suit against those defendants.

Section 1983 damages claims against CUNY, Brooklyn College, and Persico in her official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Sacay v. RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF CITY UNIVER. OF NY · filed 2002-03-27

All the claims brought by Valerie and Melanie Sacay against CUNY, Brooklyn College, and Persico in her official capacity, which are limited to claims for damages, are dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment.

A county cannot invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity against a § 1983 claim arising from sheriff’s department conduct during an internal county jail transfer.

Davis v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2002-04-03

Guarding and transporting inmates within a county jail falls within “the oversight and management of the local jail,” and “the Sheriff acts for the County in this management function.” Id. at 561. The County of Los Angeles therefore may not invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity against Davis’s claim that the employees of the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department violated her civil rights during an internal jail transfer.

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

Jordan v. Logan · filed 2002-04-16

The district court properly dismissed Jordan’s claims for damages against the state, and against the state employees in their official capacities, because these claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against the Legislative Counsel of California and individual defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Fields v. Burnett · filed 2002-04-16

The district court properly dismissed Fields’ section 1983 claims against the Legislative Counsel and against individual defendants in their official capacities because the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state official in an official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity except to the extent they seek prospective injunctive relief.

R.E. Grills Construction Co. v. Alabama Department of Transportation · filed 2002-04-25

The same reasoning applies to the § 1983 claims against Bowlin in his official capacity, except those claims for prospective injunctive relief.

State corrections departments and state penitentiaries are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from Section 1983 suits.

Creek v. South Dakota Department of Corrections · filed 2002-05-03

Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that the only named defendants–the South Dakota Department of Corrections and the South Dakota State Penitentiary–are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from ...Creek's suit.

Section 1983 claims seeking prospective relief against state officials for ongoing violations of federal law may proceed under the Ex Parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Antrican v. Odom · filed 2002-05-09

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order denying the North Carolina officials’ motion to dismiss this case on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. We conclude, as did the district court, that this action, as defined by the complaint, falls within the exception to that immunity provided by Ex Parte Young.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims for monetary damages against a state, its agencies, and state officials in their official capacities when the damages would be paid from the state treasury.

Garcia-Figueroa v. Rico · filed 2002-05-14

With respect to Garcia’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against co-defendants Commonwealth, Department and Secretary in his official capacity, it is well established that the Eleventh Amendment bars a section 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.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary-damages claims against a state, state agency, or state official in an official capacity when payment would come from the state treasury.

Lopez-Hernandez v. Municipality of San Juan · filed 2002-05-14

With respect to López’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendants Municipality of San Juan, the Mayor, Graulau, Cordero, Ayala, Vega, Perez, and Santiago in their official capacity, it is well established that the Eleventh Amendment bars a section 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.

A state agency acting as an arm of the state has Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 claim.

Wright v. Hickman · filed 2002-06-04

The Colorado Department of Corrections also argues that it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from Ms. Pinkey’s § 1983 claim. Although the district court did not reach the issue, we agree that Eleventh Amendment immunity is warranted.

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

Tracy v. Keating · filed 2002-06-06

Additionally, it dismissed the claims against the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board and claims for money damages against the Governor, the director of corrections, and the district attorneys in their official capacities on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... We AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation of January 25, 2001, thus affirming the dispositions of Plaintiff Tracy’s claims as provided in the district court’s Order of February 13, 2001.

Section 1983 permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials under Ex parte Young despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Robinson Ex Rel. Robinson v. Kansas · filed 2002-07-09

We also hold that the Ex parte Young doctrine is applicable to permit suit against the state officials pursuant to section 1983 for the alleged violations of Title VI and the Fourteenth Amendment.

A university that is an arm of the state cannot be held liable for damages on a § 1983 claim under the Eleventh Amendment.

Desio Rabal Pinto v. Universidad De Puerto Rico · filed 1990-01-29

The court’s analysis and conclusion that the University is an arm of the state within the purview of the Eleventh Amendment is quite correct. ... That the University cannot be liable in damages is clear.

In a § 1983 action seeking prospective declaratory or injunctive relief, a state officer sued in an official capacity must have a connection to enforcing the challenged state law to avoid Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Yniguez v. Mofford · filed 1990-02-06

Although Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to actions against state officers sued in their official capacities since such actions are in effect brought against the state, ... suits for declaratory and injunctive relief, such as the instant action, against state officers in their official capacities are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment if those officers have some connection to the enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional state law, which connection may arise from either the 'specific law itself or from the state’s general law.

Section 1983 allows prospective injunctive relief against state officials, including reinstatement to medical leave, without an Eleventh Amendment bar.

Russell v. Dunston · filed 1990-02-12

Under Dwyer, therefore, Russell's reinstatement to medical leave would be prospective relief and not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 damages claim against a state employee is barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the complaint does not allege that the employee is sued personally.

Pearly L. Wilson v. Richard P. Seiter E.M. Barnes, Sgt. · filed 1990-03-09

However, the court should not have made this ruling because the eleventh amendment creates a jurisdictional bar that precludes consideration of Wilson's amended complaint. This is so because Wilson failed to allege that Barnes was being sued personally rather than in his official capacity as a state employee.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against a state agency are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Jones v. Michigan Department of Education · filed 1990-03-12

Plaintiff's cause of action lacks an arguable basis in the law as the eleventh amendment precludes a suit for monetary damages against defendant, an agency of the state of Michigan.

Section 1983 does not provide an exception to a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages paid by the state treasury.

Port Chester Nursing Home v. Axelrod · filed 1990-03-13

Plaintiff’s invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is of no help as § 1983 does not represent an exception to a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

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

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

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

Black v. Goodman · filed 1990-04-10

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

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

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

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

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

Grizzell v. Howard · filed 1990-04-13

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

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

Hoffman v. Maryland · filed 1990-04-17

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

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

Ross v. Young · filed 1990-05-22

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

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

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

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

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

Kerr v. Kimmell · filed 1990-06-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawson v. Bouck · filed 1990-09-24

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

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

Hufford v. Rodgers · filed 1990-09-25

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

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

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

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

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

Rodgers v. Moyer · filed 1990-11-15

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

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

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

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

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

Rees v. Jones · filed 1990-12-11

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

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

Martin v. Brown · filed 1991-02-07

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

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

Martin v. Whalen · filed 1991-02-25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garcia v. Tansy · filed 1991-03-22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dixon v. Margolis · filed 1991-05-16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson v. Wefald · filed 1991-06-03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Williams v. Mishra · filed 1991-09-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullock v. Hoof · filed 1991-11-26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jones v. Checkett · filed 1992-06-10

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

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

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

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

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

Grassinger v. Welty · filed 1992-07-09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 92-1068 · filed 1992-08-17

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

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

Northington v. Jackson · filed 1992-08-17

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

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

Haston v. Galetka · filed 1992-09-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barry v. Fordice · filed 1992-12-03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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