42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Feerick v. Sudolnik · filed 1993-02-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monroe v. Horwitch · filed 1993-05-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas v. Brown · filed 1993-05-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blum v. Schlegel · filed 1993-07-01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roos v. Smith · filed 1993-09-27

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

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

Hutsell v. Sayre · filed 1993-09-29

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

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

Thomas v. Devries · filed 1993-10-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barfield v. Blackwood · filed 1993-10-26

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

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

McMurtray v. Holladay · filed 1993-12-29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 actions against a state.

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

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

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

Gill v. Stella · filed 1994-03-05

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

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

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

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

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

Sutton v. Evans · filed 1994-03-14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jackson v. Doria · filed 1994-03-25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jones v. Nelson · filed 1994-08-05

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeney v. Kavitski · filed 1994-10-12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haley v. Pataki · filed 1995-05-03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marbley v. Bane · filed 1995-06-15

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

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

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

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

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

Wrenn v. Freeman · filed 1995-07-14

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

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

Searcy v. Singletary · filed 1995-07-27

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

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

Tracy v. Parker · filed 1995-07-28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flores v. Long · filed 1995-08-17

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

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

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

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

Section 1983 damages suits against states, state agencies, or arms of the state in federal court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Wayne v. State of Or. · filed 1995-09-25

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages in federal court against states, state agencies or arms of the state.

A state department is immune under the Eleventh Amendment from a § 1983 suit for money damages.

Herbert W.G. Clanton v. Michigan Department of Education · filed 1995-09-27

Moreover, defendant is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from suit for money damages.

Section 1983 claims for injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials in their official capacity are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Bazzetta v. McGinnis · filed 1995-10-06

Claims for injunctive and declaratory relief made against state officials in their official capacity, such as those made in this case, however, are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 suit seeking prospective injunctive relief against state officials for violations of federal treaty rights falls within Ex parte Young and is not barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa Indians v. Carlson · filed 1995-10-18

This case, however, seeks to vindicate important federal rights, and thus falls squarely within the doctrine of Ex parte Young.

Section 1983 permits a suit against state officials for prospective injunctive relief to prevent violations of federal treaty rights despite an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense.

Fond Du Lac Band Of Chippewa Indians v. Carlson · filed 1995-10-18

Indeed, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Blatchford supports our conclusion here that the Band may maintain a lawsuit against state officials seeking prospective injunctive relief against violations of their federal treaty rights.

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

Reid v. State of Tennessee Tennessee Department of Corrections · filed 1995-10-20

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A state is immune from a § 1983 suit under the Eleventh Amendment unless it waives immunity.

Davis v. United States · filed 1995-11-03

With regard to defendant the State of Michigan, a suit against a state or its officials contravenes the Eleventh Amendment irrespective of the suit being based on federal or state law absent a waiver.

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

Todaro v. Norat · filed 1995-11-03

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code does not override states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 monetary-damages claims against state prison employees in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Killen v. Daniel R. McBride Andy Pazera, and Hugh Vales · filed 1995-11-14

As state prison employees, the defendants are considered state agents and thus plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 permits prospective declaratory relief against state officials despite Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages claims against them in their official capacities.

Rourke v. NY STATE DEPT. OF CORRECT. SERVICES · filed 1995-11-27

Accordingly, the plaintiff may maintain the action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as against the individual defendants, insofar as the plaintiff seeks prospective relief.

Private parties sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because they acted as state actors.

Brotherton v. Cleveland · filed 1995-11-27

Applying the rationale behind these decisions, we find that like qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity should not be extended to private parties.

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

Rourke v. New York State Department of Correctional Services · filed 1995-11-27

Accordingly, the plaintiff may maintain the action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as against the individual defendants, insofar as the plaintiff seeks prospective relief.

Section 1983 permits suit against a county for conduct by county officials without Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state did not significantly participate in the alleged act.

Dugas v. Jefferson County · filed 1995-12-15

Under these circumstances, there can be no question that the county may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court without Eleventh Amendment concern.

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

Golden v. McCaughtry · filed 1995-12-27

Consequently, to the extent that Mr. Golden is seeking monetary damages from the defendants in their official capacities, his claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Molina v. State of NY · filed 1995-12-27

Neither RICO nor § 1983 override New York’s Eleventh Amendment immunity and New York has not consented to such suits in federal court.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state arm is immune from a federal damages action under the section.

Hadley v. North AR Community · filed 1996-02-14

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim for front pay is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the award would compensate for past conduct rather than halt an ongoing violation.

Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. · filed 1996-02-16

We find appellants' § 1983 "front pay" claims to be neither prospective nor equitable as they have been presented to this court. Appellants' specific allegations target past conduct, and the "front pay" remedy is not intended to halt a present, continuing violation of federal law.

Section 1983 front pay claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity when the requested payment compensates past harm rather than stops an ongoing federal violation.

Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation · filed 1996-02-16

We find appellants' § 1983 "front pay" claims to be neither prospective nor equitable as they have been presented to this court. ... Plaintiffs' request for "front pay" does not, therefore, fall within the boundaries of permissible relief defined by Ex Parte Young and we therefore affirm the district court's holding that these claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Powell v. Dept. of Human Resources of State of Ga. · filed 1996-02-21

Section 1983 is not a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Coxson v. Pennsylvania · filed 1996-02-21

Nothing in § 1983 overrides the state immunity otherwise protected under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

BURNS-VIDLAK BY BURNS v. Chandler · filed 1996-04-12

The Court also finds that Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Burns-Vidlak ex rel. Burns v. Chandler · filed 1996-04-12

The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal damages actions.

Hadley v. North Arkansas Community Technical College · filed 1996-04-19

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Georgia’s Department of Corrections and Board of Corrections are arms of the state protected from § 1983 suits by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

McBride v. Board of Corrections · filed 1996-05-17

In Georgia, the Department of Corrections and the “Board of Corrections” would be considered “arms of the State” for Eleventh Amendment purposes.

A state agency is immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court unless it waives Eleventh Amendment immunity; state officials are not categorically immune in their official or individual capacities.

Kearney v. Department of Industrial Relations, State of Ohio · filed 1996-05-31

We note that the Ohio Department of Industrial Relations is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a state agency. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984). Unless Eleventh Amendment immunity is expressly waived, a state and its agencies are immune from an action for damages and injunctive relief in federal court. See id. However, the Eleventh Amendment poses no absolute bar against state officials in their official capacity, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 666-68 (1974); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908), nor does it bar suit against state officials in their individual capacity. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31 (1991). Thus, the suit may proceed against the individual defendants.

Official-capacity § 1983 claims for damages against state corrections officials are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, while claims for prospective injunctive relief are not.

Eldridge v. Morrison · filed 1996-06-04

To the extent that Eldridge seeks to recover monetary relief from these defendants in their official capacities, the Eleventh Amendment bars this court from exercising jurisdiction to entertain such claims, and summary judgment is due to be GRANTED to the defendants. To the extent that Eldridge seeks prospective injunctive relief from these defendants, the Eleventh Amendment does not present a jurisdictional bar.

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

Lipofsky v. Steingut · filed 1996-06-04

There is no such abrogation for suits under § 1983, see, e.g., Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979), and we are aware of no federal legislation that permits suit against the State in federal court by Lipofsky on the claim he asserts.

Section 1983 money damages claims against a state corrections department and an official sued in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Gutierrez v. Michigan Department of Corrections Richard Huff, M.D. Mary Berghuis, Deputy Warden · filed 1996-06-06

Furthermore, we affirm the District Court's decision that the Michigan Department of Corrections and defendant Huff in his official capacity are immune to Plaintiff's money damages claim under the Eleventh Amendment, and there is no merit to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his scalp problem against the remaining two individual defendants.

Section 1983 claims against a state college and its officials are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity except for prospective equitable relief against an official in an official capacity.

LaFleur v. Wallace State Community College · filed 1996-06-18

Under § 1983, the Eleventh Amendment bars the plaintiffs claim against Wallace College and President Bailey, except to the extent that the plaintiff seeks prospective equitable relief from President Bailey in his official capacity.

In a § 1983 suit, a county defendant’s Eleventh Amendment immunity depends on responsibility for the challenged duties and the source of funding for those duties.

Gonzales v. Wing · filed 1996-06-21

Thus, in determining whether a county is entitled to immunity from suit, the Second Circuit has focused on issues such as who bears the “ultimate responsibility” for the allegedly violated duties at issue, and considered the source of funding for the agency duties in question.

Section 1983 permits injunctive relief against state actors even when Eleventh Amendment immunity bars monetary recovery against them.

Blankenship v. Warren County, Va. · filed 1996-06-26

To reiterate, this holding does not prevent plaintiff from pursuing her § 1983 claim for injunctive relief against the Sheriff and the Sheriffs Department; the Eleventh Amendment only bars a claim for monetary recovery against state actors.

Section 1983 allows claims for injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Cromer v. Brown · filed 1996-07-15

Eleventh Amendment immunity does not protect state officials in their official capacities from § 1983 claims for injunctive relief.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state university and its board are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Brine v. University of IA · filed 1996-07-19

The trial court held, as a matter of law, that the university and the Board of Regents were immune, under the eleventh amendment, from suit on the due process and first amendment claims (brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983). ... Because the plaintiffs asked only for damages and not for injunctive relief on the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the trial court was correct in its legal analysis.

Section 1983 claims seeking prospective injunctive relief against state officials for federal constitutional violations are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Cuffeld v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · filed 1996-07-23

With regard to the claims of plaintiff against the individual defendants under Section 1983 and Section 1985 asserted in Counts I through IV of the complaint, however, plaintiff here is seeking prospective in-junctive relief against these officials and so his Section 1983 and Section 1985 claims based upon his federal constitutional rights are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

An unconsenting state is immune in federal court from a § 1983 claim for damages.

Thompson v. BD. OF SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 1 · filed 1996-07-31

The Eleventh Amendment protects unconsenting states from a suit for damages brought in federal court, including claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Thompson ex rel. Buchanon v. Board of Special School District No. 1 · filed 1996-07-31

The Eleventh Amendment protects unconsenting states from a suit for damages brought in federal court, including claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The claim against Johnson is against him in his official capacity as commissioner of MDCFL. The claims against MDCFL and SBE are actions against the state for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Therefore the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against these defendants cannot stand.

Section 1983 claims against a state and state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent they seek money damages.

Knussman v. State of Md. · filed 1996-08-02

However, plaintiffs’ claims under § 1983 against the State of Maryland and the individual defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent they seek money damages.

Section 1983 claims for monetary relief against the State Bar of California and its employees in their official capacities are barred in federal court by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ramos v. Committee of Bar Examiners of State Bar of California · filed 1996-08-05

We have previously held that the State Bar of California, as well as its employees when sued in their official capacity, are immune from suit in federal court for monetary damages in light of the Eleventh Amendment. ... Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing Ramos's claims for monetary relief against the State Bar of California and against the individual defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not allow a suit against a state department of corrections that is immune from suit.

Gilner v. Drill Instructor · filed 1996-08-19

We agree with the district court that the Department of Corrections is immune from suit and that there is no evidence that Oswald--or any other defendant--was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs.

Section 1983 claims against a state and a judge in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, while judicial immunity bars claims against the judge in his individual capacity.

Shak v. Fong · filed 1996-08-26

We agree with the district court that Shak's claims against the State of Hawaii and Judge Fong in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir.1992), and his claims against Judge Fong in his individual capacity are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, see Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc).

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

Greenwood v. State of New York · filed 1996-09-03

Second, Section 1983 does not represent a congressional abrogation of this Eleventh Amendment immunity, ... nor has Greenwood presented any authority suggesting that New York State, OMH, or MPC waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state university and its board of regents are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the plaintiffs seek no injunctive relief.

Brine v. University Of Iowa · filed 1996-09-20

The trial court held, as a matter of law, that the university and the Board of Regents were immune, under the eleventh amendment, from suit on the due process and first amendment claims (brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983). ... Because the plaintiffs asked only for damages and not for injunctive relief on the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the trial court was correct in its legal analysis.

Section 1983 does not authorize a judgment binding a state through a suit against an attorney general who has neither threatened to enforce the challenged law nor authority to enforce it.

Children's Healthcare is Legal Duty, Inc. v. Deters · filed 1996-09-20

This action is akin to one in the Seventh Circuit in which the plaintiffs' action challenging the constitutionality of a state statute named as the defendant the state's Attorney General, who had never threatened to prosecute them and had no authority under the statute to do so. The Seventh Circuit's observation is equally appropriate here: "Plaintiffs apparently named the office of the Attorney General in an effort to obtain a judgment binding the State ... as an entity, a step that Congress did not authorize when enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the [E]leventh [A]mendment does not permit in the absence of such authorization."

Section 1983 actions against a state and its officers in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Wells v. State of Oklahoma · filed 1996-09-30

Under the Eleventh Amendment, the State of Oklahoma and its officers are immune from suit in a § 1983 action.

Section 1983 permits declaratory and injunctive claims against state officials in their official capacities despite an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense.

Manley v. Fordice · filed 1996-10-16

The undersigned rejects the défendants’ claims that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity or that the theory of respondeat superi- or bars relief. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously reversed this district court’s dismissal of the claim of consolidated plaintiff, Bobby Horton, by unpublished opinion. That court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against a state official in his official capacity to enforce a state law alleged to violate a provision of the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 claims for damages against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but claims for prospective reinstatement may proceed.

Fry v. McCall · filed 1996-11-13

Thus, while Fry’s claims against the defendants in their official capacities seeking damages under § 1983 are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, Fry’s federal claims for reinstatement against the defendants in their official capacities are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for states and their agencies.

Schultz v. New York State Unified Court System · filed 1996-12-09

Section 1983 does not overrule the broad immunity afforded to states and their agencies by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Mack v. Michael O'leary, John Lee Lipscomb-Bey v. Howard A. Peters III · filed 1997-01-08

The judge was right to dismiss so much of the suit as seeks damages under section 1983 from the defendants in their official rather than individual capacities, because such a claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment (the defendants did interpose the Eleventh Amendment as a defense to Mack’s equal protection claim, though not with respect to his claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act), and also right to dismiss so much of the suit as seeks relief under the free-exereise clause of the First Amendment rather than under the Act, since Smith bars the former.

Section 1983 claims against a state and a state officer in her official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Weinberger v. Wisconsin · filed 1997-01-31

As a threshold matter, we agree that the district court properly dismissed the claims against the State of Wisconsin and Officer Chester in her official capacity. These suits are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities are limited by Eleventh Amendment immunity to prospective injunctive relief for unconstitutional conduct.

Coller v. STATE OF MO., DEPT. OF ECONOMIC DEVELOP. · filed 1997-02-13

In light of Eleventh Amendment immunity and the fact that its primary purpose is to protect state treasuries, prospective injunctive relief would be the only remedy available to a plaintiff for a defendant who, acting in his official capacity, allegedly commits unconstitutional actions in violation of § 1983.

Section 1983 damages for past injuries are barred by the Eleventh Amendment when state officials are sued only in their official capacities.

Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v. Glendening · filed 1997-02-24

Because the Plaintiffs have sued the Defendants only in their official capacities, however, their claim for damages for past injuries is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 allows prospective injunctive relief, including reinstatement, against state officials in their official capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Godon v. NC Crime Control & Public Safety · filed 1997-03-04

Since Plaintiffs claim for prospective injunctive relief — reinstatement to her former position of employment — is not tantamount to a claim for monetary damages, Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief against the individual defendants in their official capacities is not, as Defendants argue, barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Walton v. DIVISION OF REVENUE, FOR STATE OF DEL. · filed 1997-04-01

Here, because the Division of Revenue is an agency of the State, the Court must grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Division on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.

Section 1983 does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity for official capacity claims against state social services supervisors in federal court.

Lowery v. Prince George's County, Md. · filed 1997-04-15

With regard to claims under § 1983, neither method of overcoming the immunity has occurred. ... The claims against the DSS supervisors in their official capacity therefore are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 suits against a state and its officials seeking declaratory or injunctive relief are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has committed no continuing violation of federal law.

Booth v. State of Maryland · filed 1997-04-21

Five death row prisoners sued the State of Maryland, its Governor, Attorney General, and a state prison warden under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... In sum, this action fails to satisfy the requirements of Ex Parte Young. Neither the invocation of a chapter 154 defense, nor the announced intention to assert such a defense, nor the failure to com- ply with chapter 154 constitutes a continuing violation of federal law. Under these circumstances, we find no authorization in Ex Parte Young for abrogating Maryland's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A citizen cannot bring a Section 1983 action against a state without its consent because the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit.

Brown v. State of Utah · filed 1997-04-25

Saul Brown appeals the dismissal of his action filed against the State of Utah under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court held because the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution prohibits a citizen from suing a state without its permission, Mr. Brown’s action was frivolous and dismissable under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 inasmuch as Utah had not given its consent to this filing. That judgment was correct.

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

Brown v. Croce · filed 1997-06-04

Brown’s suit as against the State of New York is also barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against state universities that are arms of the state are barred in federal court by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Alexander v. Univ. of AR · filed 1997-06-18

Alexander, a cytotechnology student at the University of Arkansas School of Medical Sciences (UASMS), brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the University of Arkansas (UA) and UASMS, alleging those entities violated his constitutional rights in setting arbitrary and capricious requirements for the completion of his degree. ... The district court dismissed the action against UA and UASMS, finding those entities, as arms of the state of Arkansas, were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. ... Having reviewed the parties' briefs and submissions, we are convinced that the district court's ruling was correct in all respects.

Section 1983 claims against a state official in an official capacity may seek prospective declaratory or injunctive relief for federal violations despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Smolow v. Hafer · filed 2005-01-24

The Court concludes that, under Ex Parte Young, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar plaintiff from seeking declaratory judgment or an injunction on the basis of his federal claims.

A § 1983 suit against a state board is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity absent a clear waiver, but the plaintiff may amend the complaint to name board members as defendants.

Rucci v. MO Bd for Architects · filed 2005-02-09

Thus, we conclude that Mr. Rucci’s suit against the Board was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, Mr. Rucci should be given leave to amend his complaint to name the Board members as defendants.

The Eleventh Amendment bars monetary relief against a state or its agencies on a § 1983 claim.

S-1 BY AND THROUGH P-1 v. Turlington · filed 1986-05-23

Finally, the Eleventh Amendment would preclude monetary relief against the state and its agencies pursuant to any § 1983 and § 504 claims.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against state officials sued only in their official capacities when the Eleventh Amendment bars that relief.

Olson v. Kenney · filed 2005-04-04

We also conclude the court did not err in dismissing the Olsons’ complaint, because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine2 precludes their request for a new state civil trial, see Lemonds v. St. Louis County, 222 F.3d 488, 492-93 (8th Cir. 2000), and the Eleventh Amendment precludes their request for punitive damages as defendants were sued only in their official capacities, see Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999); Treleven v. Univ. of Minn., 73 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir. 1996).

Section 1983 claims against Louisiana officials in their official capacities are barred by the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Vanderwall v. Peck · filed 2005-04-18

To the extent appellant brought a section 1983 claim against appellees in their official capacities, dismissal was proper because Louisiana has Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for state agencies, whether the claim seeks damages or injunctive relief.

Eshun v. New York State Department of Social Services · filed 1987-01-22

Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment proscribes Mr. Eshun’s § 1983 action against DSS. That bar applies both to the demand for damages and the demand for injunctive relief under § 1983.

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

Shropshire v. Duckworth · filed 1987-02-03

It is also readily apparent that any damage claims against any of these three defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as defined in Pennhurst School and Hospital Corp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984), and more recently by the Court of Appeals of this circuit in Darryl v. Coler, 801 F.2d 893 (7th Cir.1986), Part III B at page 906.

Section 1983 claims against an immune state university and official-capacity damages claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but a claim for prospective reinstatement against officials in their official capacities may proceed.

Kashani v. Purdue University · filed 1987-03-10

Although the Eleventh Amendment bars all claims against Purdue and the damages claims against its officials in their official capacities, it does not thwart the claims against the officials in their official capacities for the injunctive relief of reinstatement.

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

Braswell v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia · filed 2005-04-26

Nor has Congress abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Larson v. Gary Kempker Michael Kemna George Lombardi · filed 2005-05-02

Section 1983 does not contain a clear legislative statement abrogating a state's immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state prison and a state corrections department are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Garland v. Taylor · filed 2005-05-05

In his original complaint, Garland named SCI-Houtzdale and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. The Magistrate Judge to whom the case was referred properly found that the claims against these state defendants were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 suit for prospective relief against a governor is barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the governor lacks a special connection to enforcing the challenged law.

Lee v. Minner · filed 2005-05-13

Because the Governor lacks any special relationship to the FOIA, Plaintiffs suit against the Governor is essentially a suit against the State of Delaware which is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, the Court concludes in the alternative that Plaintiffs suit against the Governor is precluded by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state corrections department for all relief, and against a warden in his official capacity for damages, are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Sasser v. Alabama Department of Corrections · filed 2005-06-09

Plaintiffs Section 1983 claims against the ADOC for all relief and against Watson in his official capacity for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Plumey v. New York State · filed 2005-06-15

New York has not waived it’s immunity in the case at bar, and it is well established that Congress did not abrogate state immunity when enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.