42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against a state corrections department or officials in their official capacities without the state’s consent.

Walker v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2005-04-01

We have previously noted that state agencies, including corrections departments and defendants in their official capacities, cannot be sued for monetary damages without the state’s consent, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a public corporation may proceed when the corporation is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Torres v. Zabala Carrión · filed 2005-07-11

Although WIPR performs a governmental function and is financially dependent on the Commonwealth, we find that its autonomy, the fact that it “has been separately incorporated,” and its “power to sue and be sued” militate against finding it immune from suit.

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

Larson v. Kempker · filed 2005-07-15

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

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

Larson v. Gary Kempker Michael Kemna George Lombardi · filed 2005-07-15

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

Section 1983 does not permit an injunctive suit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey because it is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Port Authority Police Benevolent Ass'n v. Port Authority of New York · filed 1987-05-27

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

Section 1983 claims against a state university remain subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity when its counsel purports to waive that immunity without legislative authorization.

Coleman v. Wayne State University · filed 1987-07-07

Aware of no enactment by the Michigan legislature clearly authorizing the waiver of the University’s immunity, the Court holds defendant’s counsel’s statement in open court did not effectively waive the University’s Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983.

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

Antonelli v. State of NJ · filed 2005-08-17

The District Court correctly held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the Appellants’ claims against the State and state officials except for the § 1983 claims against Department officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief are not barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Antonelli v. State of New Jersey · filed 2005-08-17

The District Court correctly held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the Appellants' claims against the State and state officials except for the § 1983 claims against Department officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for an unconsenting state entity.

Khan v. Southern Univ · filed 2005-08-19

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Louisiana has not waived it.

Section 1983 suits against a state or its agency are generally barred by the Eleventh Amendment when no responsible officer is joined in an individual capacity.

Denke v. South Dakota Department of Social Services, and Laura Hawkins · filed 1987-09-29

However, it remains true that if a responsible officer is not joined in an individual capacity, a suit brought solely against the state or one of its agencies is generally barred by the eleventh amendment.

A New York school district is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit.

Hanig v. Yorktown Central School District · filed 2005-09-02

This Court is not only persuaded by but is bound by the Second Circuit’s decision in Fay, and accordingly concludes that defendant is not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Murray v. State of Colorado · filed 2005-09-06

It is well-established, however, that § 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against a school board and school officials acting in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Finkle v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF SYOSSET CENT. SCHOOL · filed 2005-09-12

Nonetheless, the Eleventh Amendment prevents the School Board and Kassebaum and Hankin (acting in their official capacities) from being sued for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their individual capacities are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the alleged unconstitutional acts were committed in that capacity.

Cunningham v. Belleque · filed 2005-09-27

We also reverse the district court’s summary judgment on Eleventh Amendment grounds because Cunningham named the state defendants in their individual capacities and alleged that they committed acts in that capacity that violated his constitutional rights.

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

Hamilton v. Florida Department of Education/Vocational Rehabilitation Services · filed 2005-09-29

As to Hamilton’s claims of discrimination based upon race and disability against defendants DVR and against Whitaker and Givens in their official capacities, Hamilton’s § 1983 claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal court to award money damages against a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Roberson v. McShan · filed 2005-10-20

As to Roberson’s original claim against the TDCJ under § 1983, the Eleventh Amendment barred the federal district court from awarding relief on this claim.

Section 1983 claims for money damages against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, while claims against them in their individual capacities may proceed.

Smith v. Ozmint · filed 2005-10-24

As discussed above, the Eleventh Amendment prevents the court from considering claims asserted against the named individuals in their official capacity; however, the Eleventh Amendment does not prevent suits against state officers for money damages to be paid out of the officers’ own pockets.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against an arm of Florida because the state has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and Congress has not abrogated it.

Earl Williams, Jr. v. Robbins · filed 2005-10-24

Because the state of Florida has not waived its immunity to § 1983 actions, and Congress has not abrogated the state’s immunity with respect to suits brought pursuant to § 1983, the district court did not err by dismissing Williams’s amended complaint as to FCCJ, an arm of the state, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

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

Carter v. Hassell · filed 2005-10-25

Having reviewed the record and appellate submissions, see Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (de novo review), we agree Carter’s ... federal claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment because he named defendants only in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

McConnell v. Adams · filed 1987-11-19

As the district court correctly noted, Sec. 1983 does not abrogate eleventh amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims for money damages against a defendant in his official capacity may be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Douglas v. Hollins · filed 2005-12-19

To the extent that Douglas seeks money damages from Hollins in his official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment bars such a claim.

California public school districts and their employees sued in their official capacities are immune from § 1983 claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

Maleki v. Los Angeles Unified School District · filed 2005-12-21

Our decision in Belanger compels the conclusion that LAUSD is entitled to summary judgment and that defendantappellees Xanthos, Leslie, Clenney, Black, and Freeman, as employees of LAUSD, are entitled to immunity in their official capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, so arms of the state remain immune from suits under it.

Joseph, Michael v. Bd Regents Univ WI · filed 2005-12-27

Because the Board is an “arm of the state” and Congress has not abrogated its immunity in § 1983 actions, this suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Seibert v. State Of Oklahoma · filed 1989-02-10

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

Section 1983 damages claims against state court administrators and their employees in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when they are arms of the state.

Zabriskie v. Court Administration · filed 2006-02-01

We conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for money damages as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities and injunctive relief against them in their official capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Sistemas Urbanos, Inc. v. Ramos · filed 2006-02-09

Second, although the defendants are being sued in their official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment Immunity does not bar the issuance of injunctive relief against the official capacity defendants. And third, because they are also sued in their individual capacities, any damage award would not be paid from the Commonwealth’s coffers, but rather from defendants’ own assets.

An arm of the state is immune from a Section 1983 suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Walker v. City of Waterbury · filed 2006-02-21

Therefore, the Court finds that the clear weight of facts and factors compel the conclusion that the Oversight Board is an “arm of the state” and that it is entitled to the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the State of Connecticut.

A state prison officer sued in his official capacity is immune from a Section 1983 claim seeking only money damages for official acts.

Parks v. Garry L. Kelly, Captain · filed 1991-05-21

The district court held that Parks's action was barred by the eleventh amendment since Parks sought only money damages from the defendant for acts committed while the defendant was acting in his official capacity. ... Upon consideration, we find the district court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Abu-Fakher v. Brodie · filed 2006-03-16

Mr. Abu-Fakher’s request for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a § 1983 claim seeking damages or injunctive relief against a state.

Azubuko v. State of New Hamp · filed 2006-04-12

Plaintiffs’ action, which seeks damages and injunctive relief against the State of New Hampshire, is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive claims against state officials despite Eleventh Amendment immunity when they threaten unconstitutional enforcement.

HAWKE YE COMMODITY PROMOTIONS, INC. v. Miller · filed 2006-04-26

The court also has jurisdiction over Defendants Attorney General Miller and Commissioner Techau. ... “A federal court may therefore issue an injunction to prevent state officials from violating the Constitution without running afoul of the Eleventh Amendment.”

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

Perkins v. Blackwell · filed 2000-10-04

The district court did not err in dismissing Perkins’s claims for money damages against all of the defendants in their official capacities because those claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Graves v. North Dakota State · filed 2006-05-17

We hold that dismissal was proper regarding the claims for damages because NDSP has Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

A § 1983 claim against the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners is not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the Board is not an arm of the state.

Thomas v. Board of Police Comm · filed 2006-05-18

Because Auer controls our decision in this case, we necessarily conclude that the St. Louis Board is not protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice is protected by the Eleventh Amendment from § 1983 suits for money damages.

Ballard v. State of Texas · filed 2002-08-30

Also, though the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is protected by the Eleventh Amendment from suits for money damages, see Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998), a pro se plaintiff who has named the wrong defendant should be permitted to amend his pleadings when it is clear from his complaint that there is a potential ground for relief.

Section 1983 claims against a state corrections department are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not waived it.

Jordan v. Delaware Ex Rel. Delaware Department of Corrections · filed 2006-06-09

In view of the State’s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, which it has not waived, Jordan’s Section 1983 claims against the DOC must be dismissed.

A state and its department do not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 claim by filing a motion to dismiss asserting that immunity.

Ramos-Pinero v. Commonweath of PR · filed 2006-06-30

Accordingly, we conclude that the Commonwealth and DTOP did not waive their immunity by filing a motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 claims against a state or its agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment regardless of the relief sought.

MacK v. Holcomb · filed 2006-07-12

Regardless of the relief sought, the Eleventh Amendment bars this court from assuming jurisdiction over § 1981 and § 1983 claims asserted against a state and its agencies.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against states and state officials sued in their official capacities.

Anderson v. Pennsylvania · filed 2006-08-15

As the district court correctly stated, the Eleventh Amendment applies to § 1983 claims.

A school district that is not an arm of the state cannot claim Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 suit.

Black v. North Panola School District · filed 2006-08-24

Upon consideration of these factors, we conclude that NPSD is not an arm of the state of Mississippi; therefore, it is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal or state court.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

O'Connor v. The Florida Bar · filed 2006-09-01

Neither apply here; § 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979), and the Bar did not consent to M r. O’Connor’s action or otherwise waive its immunity.

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

Bodnar, David v. Texas State · filed 2006-10-23

But that is not allowed unless Texas consented to suit in the federal courts or Congress validly abrogated Texas’s immunity. ... Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979) (explaining that Congress did not intend for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to override States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity). Neither exception is present here.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 suits against state court employees.

Neighbors v. Agatha · filed 2006-11-15

The district court properly dismissed this action, because suits against state court employees are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity unless the state has waived it.

Callahan v. Poppell · filed 2006-12-26

Oklahoma has not waived sovereign immunity against § 1983 claims in federal district court. ... Because sovereign immunity bars Callahan’s claim against Cotner in his official capacity, the district court’s dismissal of the claim against Cotner in his official capacity was proper.

Section 1983 does not permit a private individual to sue a state or state agency in federal court because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Amaram v. Virginia State University · filed 2007-02-20

It is a matter of black letter law that a private individual cannot maintain a § 1983 suit against a state or a state agency in federal court on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a state or its agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment regardless of the relief sought.

Chmielinski v. Massachusetts Office of the Commissioner of Probation · filed 2007-03-22

The doctrine of Ex paHe Young, which carves out an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits against individual state officials, “has no application in suits against the States and their agencies, which are barred regardless of the relief sought”.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages claims against a state or state officials sued in their official capacities when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Sossamon v. LONE STAR STATE OF TEXAS · filed 2007-03-28

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA against the State of Texas and the defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Morran v. Nevada System of Higher Education · filed 2007-03-30

Because Plaintiffs Third Claim For Relief is not brought against Defendant NSHE or any persons acting in their official capacities as State employees, Defendants’ Eleventh Amendment argument in inapplicable to Plaintiffs § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 claims against state officials sued in their individual capacities are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ruiz-Rosa v. Rivera-Gonzalez · filed 2007-04-24

To the extent the Eleventh Amendment implicates the court’s jurisdiction, see Hudson Savings Bank v. Austin, --- F.3d ---, 2007 WL 642007, at *5 (1st Cir. Mar. 5, 2007) (noting issue of whether Eleventh Amendment is jurisdictional doctrine is unresolved), which the court is required to consider sua sponte, see Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 419 F.3d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 2005), we are satisfied that the Eleventh Amendment does not provide immunity to the defendants here, who were sued in their individual capacities, see Dasey v. Anderson, 304 F.3d 148, 153 (1st Cir. 2002).

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

Leonard v. Dept. of Corr. · filed 2007-04-27

The Department of Corrections is not amenable to suit because it has immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

California school districts are immune from § 1983 claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

Corales v. Bennett · filed 2007-05-21

School districts in California are immune from § 1983 claims by virtue of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

White v. California Community Colleges · filed 2007-05-23

The district court properly dismissed White’s claims against California Community College Districts and the Chancellor’s Office as they are state entities entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against state defendants in their official capacities.

White v. Ockey · filed 2007-06-05

Turning to M s. W hite’s federal claims, the district court correctly ruled that the Eleventh Amendment protected the State Defendants from M s. W hite’s § 1983 claims against them in their official capacities.

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

Keller v. PA Board of Probation & Parole · filed 2007-06-20

First, the District Court properly dismissed Keller’s claim for damages against the defendants in their official capacities, as it is well established that § 1983 claims against state officials acting in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Estate of Keller v. California · filed 2007-06-20

Because the Kellers brought claims against the California Highway Patrol—a state agency—and its officers, in their official capacity, immunity clearly applies.

Section 1983 claims seeking retroactive declaratory relief or back pay from the State are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Gies v. Flack · filed 2007-07-06

In conclusion, Claims 2, 3 and 4 must be dismissed because they seek retroactive declaratory relief in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. Similarly, Plaintiffs claim for back pay contained in Claim 1 must be dismissed because it seeks monetary damages from the State in violation of the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity, so claims against state employees in their official capacities are barred.

Credle-Brown v. Connecticut · filed 2007-08-20

While plaintiff does satisfy the requirements to establish a § 1983 cause of action against employee defendants, her claim against them in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It is well settled that § 1983 does not override the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 claim against a state is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Chapman v. State of Texas · filed 2007-08-21

The dismissal of the complaint against the State of Texas based on Eleventh Amendment immunity is affirmed.

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

Thorpe v. New Jersey · filed 2007-09-05

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ immunity.

Section 1983 claims against an arm of the state are barred in federal court by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity unless the immunity is waived or abrogated.

Walker v. City of Waterbury · filed 2007-11-01

Our analysis of these six factors leads us to conclude that the District Court was correct in determining that the Board is an arm of the State of Connecticut and is therefore entitled to immunity.

A § 1983 claim against a state penitentiary is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Fields v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary · filed 2007-12-28

As for the OSP, Mr. Fields may not proceed with a claim against it because such a claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Fields v. OK Penitentiary · filed 2007-12-28

As for the OSP, Mr. Fields may not proceed with a claim against it because such a claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment unless the state consents or Congress abrogates its immunity.

Van Wyhe v. Reisch · filed 2008-02-13

South Dakota has not consented to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Congress has not abrogated South Dakota’s Eleventh Amendment immunity under § 1983. Accordingly, all claims for monetary damages against the Defendants in their official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred.

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

López-Ramos v. Municipality of Cataño · filed 2008-02-21

The instant case is brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to Section 1983. However, it is well settled that Section 1983 does not override the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the State is the real party in interest.

Gardner v. Rivera · filed 2008-02-25

Finally, insofar as Gardner asserts claim for monetary damages against Defendants in their capacities as officials of the State, such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment if the State is the real party in interest.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against a deputy sheriff acting as a state actor are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Scott v. Deputy Sheriff James Mercier · filed 2008-03-10

On September 14, 2007, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mercier on the § 1983 claims, finding Mercier was entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity as a state actor under Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003) and, alternatively, that Scott had failed to challenge an official policy or practice of the Brantley County Sheriff’s Office. ... We affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned order of September 14, 2007.

Section 1983 does not allow compensatory or punitive damages against state officials sued in their official capacities when the State would pay the award.

Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Cobb · filed 2008-03-21

Finally, so as to provide a complete disposition of this case, this court notes that there are other compelling reasons (not necessarily jurisdictional) to dismiss all or some of AMC’s federal and state claims and requests for relief: First, AMC’s request for compensatory and punitive damages from the defendants, other than those who are private parties, is obviously barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, for these defendants have been sued in their official capacities and thus any damages relief would have to come from the State of Alabama.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages suits against state defendants in their official capacity because they are immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

Carey v. Free · filed 2008-04-09

State defendants sued in their official capacity for monetary damages under § 1983 are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action against a person who, under color of state law, deprives someone of a constitutional right.

Davis v. Harris · filed 1983-08-23

The Eleventh Amendment was not adopted to bar actions against public employees sued individually for their personal torts.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities, though the Eleventh Amendment bars such claims against them in their official capacities.

Harley v. Carman · filed 1984-07-02

Consequently, while Edelman bars § 1983 actions against the defendants for actions in their official capacity, Scheuer permits such actions against them in their individual capacity.

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

Carmon v. DUVEAL · filed 2008-05-21

Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979), and Connecticut has not otherwise waived its immunity to this suit. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted as to any claims for money damages against Levesque in his official capacity.

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

Walker v. Bowersox · filed 2008-05-30

While we find that summary judgment was not proper as to certain defendants on the excessive-force claims arising from the restraint-bench and pepper-spray incidents, we find that the official-capacity claims against these defendants for damages are Eleventh Amendment barred.

Section 1983 permits a damages claim against a state officer in his individual capacity when the officer does not share the state’s sovereign immunity.

Barletta v. Golden Nugget Hotel Casino · filed 1985-02-06

Thus, Sheeran may benefit from a personal, qualified immunity, not at issue on the present motion. The detective need not share in the immunity accorded the sovereign State of New Jersey.

Section 1983 allows a person to sue state actors for violating federal rights, subject to immunity doctrines such as Eleventh Amendment immunity.

MORALES v. Toledo · filed 2008-07-22

Accordingly, plaintiffs claims against the Commonwealth are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not authorize a private suit for retroactive monetary relief against a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Beckham v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · filed 2008-07-31

The Eleventh Amendment generally bars a suit by private parties seeking a retroactive award of monetary relief to be paid from a State’s coffers. ... Based on this precedent and the sound holding in Weide, the Court again concludes that the State of Maryland has not waived the Eleventh Amendment immunity of MTA through its enactment of section 7-702 so as to subject it to suit in federal court. ... Accordingly, because MTA has neither waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute nor by its motion to transfer venue, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss on these grounds as to all claims except Count V.

Section 1983 claims against a community college district that is an arm of the state are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Grosz v. Lassen Community College District · filed 2008-08-19

As such, plaintiffs’ claims against the District for equal protection and due process violations pursuant to § 1983 are, as a matter of law, barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

State officers sued under § 1983 in their official capacities may be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Nesbit v. HFC Dental Department · filed 2008-09-26

Defendants Bauman, Peyton, Propotnik, Mun, and Lopez are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit based on Nesbit’s claims that they improperly approved the dental plan.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal suit against SUNY without its consent because Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Gasparik v. Stony Brook University · filed 2008-10-16

Construing plaintiffs pleadings under “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Boykin v. KeyCorp., 521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), we find that the District Court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because SUNY has not consented to be sued in a federal forum and so is immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Merkl v. Pendleton · filed 2008-11-07

G. Bradford Merkl appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and the denial of his motion for default judgment. After careful de novo review, considering the facts and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them in the light most favorable to Merkl, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the claims against the County District Court, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and the Minnesota Supreme Court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against New York State and its Department of Correctional Services are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Murray v. New York · filed 2008-11-17

Plaintiffs claims against the named defendants—New York State and DOCS—are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against an arm of the state are barred in federal court by the Eleventh Amendment.

Clark v. Tarrant County, Texas · filed 1986-10-01

While no single factor conclusively shows that Adult Probation is an arm of the state, viewing all the factors as a whole, we hold that Adult Probation is an arm of the state within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment, and that the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over appellants' section 1983 claims against it.

The State Bar of California is immune from § 1983 claims as an arm of the state.

Khanna v. State Bar of California · filed 2009-01-14

The State Bar is an arm of the state and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A § 1983 complaint is presumed to sue individual state defendants in their personal capacities, so Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar those claims.

Eriksen v. Washington State Patrol · filed 2009-01-14

However, the court erred when it dismissed the claims against the individual State defendants on Eleventh Amendment grounds because the court should have presumed that the complaint sued these defendants in their personal rather than their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from claims against state agencies.

Hughes v. Colorado Department of Corrections · filed 2009-01-15

Nor has Congress abrogated state sovereign immunity from claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

States and state agencies are immune from § 1983 claims in federal court when no exception to sovereign immunity applies.

American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Kentucky · filed 2009-01-26

Thus, American Express’ claims against the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Kentucky Department of Treasury are barred by the protective arm of the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity; a state defendant may waive that immunity by removing the case to federal court.

Abreu v. NEW MEXICO CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES · filed 2009-01-26

Congress did not, however, abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). Consequently, Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state defendants under that statute, and claims pursuant thereto in the federal courts are barred as a matter of law.

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

Abreu v. New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department · filed 2009-01-26

Congress did not, however, abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Consequently, Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state defendants under that statute, and claims pursuant thereto in the federal courts are barred as a matter of law.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against Puerto Rico and its police and justice departments are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

VAZQUEZ-CRUZ v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2009-02-03

Accordingly, Plaintiffs claims against the Commonwealth, the PR Police and the DOJ for monetary damages are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A Georgia sheriff sued in his official capacity is immune from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff forfeits any challenge to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Rylee v. Sheriff Charles Chapman · filed 2009-02-27

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suit in federal court against an “arm of the state,” except where such immunity is waived by the state or abrogated by Congress. ... For this reason, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Chapman on the ADA and § 1983 claims, based on official immunity.

Section 1983 claims against state agencies are barred under the Eleventh Amendment.

Allee v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2009-03-02

The district court properly determined that Allee’s section 1983 claims against the Oregon Department of Corrections were barred under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Mirch v. Beesely · filed 2009-03-05

Kevin J. Mirch appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his action brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various state laws. ... The district court properly dismissed the federal claims for damages and the state law claims against defendants State Bar, Bare, and Christensen because they are immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Alegria v. Williams · filed 2009-03-12

Plaintiff’s §1983 claims for monetary damages against the State and its officials are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Price v. Housing Authority · filed 2009-03-23

Because Price is suing Toussaint in his official capacity for damages, the action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the district court properly dismissed those claims.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits in federal court against a state, its agencies, or state officers acting in their official capacities because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ysais v. NEW MEXICO, JUDICIAL STANDARD COM'N · filed 2009-03-31

The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit for damages in federal court against a State, its agencies, and its officers acting in their official capacities, even when the action is brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against an Alabama sheriff in his official capacity for operating a county jail are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Shaw ex rel. Estate of Stroud v. Coosa County Commission · filed 2005-10-26

Shaw’s claims against Evans in his official capacity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed as a matter of law because Evans is immune from suit in his official capacity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against states, state agencies, or state officials sued in their official capacities when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Vacek v. Court of Appeals · filed 2009-04-07

Third, the New Mexico courts and agencies listed as defendants, as well as their employees sued in their official capacities, are not entities against which 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985 claims may be lodged given Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 suits against the Florida Department of Corrections in federal court.

Marsh v. Florida Department of Corrections Bureau of Services · filed 2009-04-23

Marsh is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment from bringing a § 1983 suit against the Bureau with respect to either the 1999 or the 2005 discharge gratuity.

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

Leon Ex Rel. Leon v. Michigan Board of Education · filed 1992-12-03

Even if the Complaint sought such relief under section 1983, it could not be granted. The State Board is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit an injunction requiring a state to pay previously withheld Medicaid claims from its treasury when the Eleventh Amendment bars that retroactive relief.

Medicare&medicaid Gu 39,257 Tekkno Laboratories, Inc. v. Cesar A. Perales, Commissioner of the Department of Social Serv · filed 1991-05-20

The Injunctive Order explicitly ordered the State to pay moneys out of its treasury in compensation of the claims submitted by Tekkno “prior to the date of this order.” ... In sum, though Tekkno has demanded other, prospective, relief in its complaint, the preliminary injunction grants interim relief that the district court had no jurisdiction to grant in light of the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not authorize an award of money damages against a state despite its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission · filed 1977-05-27

This action is brought, however, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1988 which contain no such authorization for the award of money damages against the states.

Section 1983 does not authorize suits against a state, and the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary relief against state officials in their official capacities.

Gourdine v. Ellis · filed 1977-08-18

42 U.S.C. § 1983 is completely devoid of any congressional authorization to join the state as a defendant in actions under that section, and therefore such actions are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not authorize retroactive damages against a state when the Eleventh Amendment bars that relief.

Holley Ex Rel. McQuoid v. Lavine · filed 1979-02-01

The reasoning in Monell is equally applicable to state agencies and it may be fairly read to subject state agencies to injunctive relief under § 1983, but at no point does the decision authorize an award of retroactive damages against the state.

Section 1983 permits declaratory relief against state officials when the claim does not seek retroactive payment from the state treasury.

Becker v. Conn · filed 1980-03-18

What is involved, then, is not an award of damages against the state, but, at this stage of the proceedings, plaintiffs’ defense against potential claims by the state. Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment is not a bar.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, which protects arms of the state from suit.

Ginter v. State Bar of Nevada · filed 1980-08-11

Nevertheless, Supreme Court case law decided subsequent to Monell has made it clear that Monell does not alter the rule that § 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the states.

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

Begun v. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts · filed 1982-01-05

The immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment has not been abrogated by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978), or by 42 U.S.C. § 1985, An-Ti Chai v. Michigan Technological University, 493 F.Supp. 1137, 1162 (W.D.Mich.1980).

Section 1983 claims for prospective relief may proceed against a state official in his official capacity, but the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against a state board and claims for damages or other retrospective relief against the official.

Peters v. Roy Lieuallen, Chancellor of the State Board of Higher Education, and the State Board of Higher E · filed 1982-12-03

Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against all defendants and §§ 1981 and 1983 claims against defendant Lieuallen for prospective relief are remanded to the district court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Plaintiff’s §§ 1981 and 1983 claims against the State Board of Higher Education and those against defendant Lieuallen for damages or other retrospective relief were properly dismissed by the district court.

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

Billings v. Wichita State University · filed 1983-03-03

Quern expressly held, of course, that Section 1983 did not reflect any congressional intent to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, while the Kansas Act Against Discrimination is a creature of the Kansas Legislature, not of Congress. It accordingly follows that while plaintiff’s Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, her remaining claims are.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Susan J. v. Riley · filed 2009-04-29

Congress has not abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity for § 1983 cases like this one.

California school districts are immune from § 1983 claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

Corales v. Bennett · filed 2009-06-01

The district court correctly determined that school districts in California are immune from § 1983 claims by virtue of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Official-capacity § 1983 claims against state prison officials are subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Barnett v. Foster · filed 1998-03-03

Concerning absolute immunity, Barnett does not present any evidence or explanation regarding why the defendants are not entitled to such immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, Barnett has failed to demonstrate any error.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities for past federal law violations seeking monetary relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Hopkins v. Mississippi · filed 2009-06-23

Accordingly, Ex Parte Young is inapplicable, and the Eleventh Amendment clearly applies to bar plaintiffs federal claim.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state institution, its program, and employees sued in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Harrison v. University of Colorado Health Sciences Center · filed 2009-07-10

As a result, Mr. Harrison’s claims against the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, and its Peer I program, as well as those official capacity claims against the individually named defendants are barred by the defendants’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective relief against a state official for an alleged federal constitutional violation despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Pascarella v. Swift Transportation Co. · filed 2009-07-14

Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff is seeking only to enforce federal law and is not pursuing retroactive relief, the Court finds that the Eleventh Amendment does not prevent Plaintiffs suit.

A state agency may assert Eleventh Amendment immunity against § 1983 claims.

Bragg v. Office of the District Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial District · filed 2009-07-16

However, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the largely duplicative § 1983 and state law breach of contract claims because of Eleventh Amendment Immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so claims against a state, its agencies, and officials sued in their official capacity are barred.

MacCharulo v. Gould · filed 2009-08-14

Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiffs assert Section 1983 claims against New York State, its agencies, and/or its employees in their official capacity, those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims seeking retroactive relief cannot proceed against a state or state officials in their official capacities when the Eleventh Amendment bars those suits.

Justice v. Danberg · filed 2009-08-17

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states and state officials, sued in their official capacities, when the relief sought is retroactive. ... Therefore, the only remaining defendant is Machtinger, who was sued in his individual capacity as well as his official capacity. When the case returns to the District Court, it should dismiss the other defendants.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials for a continuing constitutional violation, even when compliance requires state spending.

Love v. Evans · filed 2002-07-08

Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) employees appeal the district court’s1 imposition of preliminary injunctive relief in Arkansas inmate Kelvin Ray Love’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. ... Here, the district court’s remedy targets a continuing constitutional violation; it does not seek to make Love whole based on a past wrong. Thus we view the instant remedy as providing only prospective relief.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Jefferson v. LA State Supreme Ct · filed 2002-08-12

Although Congress may abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity by enacting legislation, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not effect any such abrogation.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities, while Eleventh Amendment immunity bars monetary claims against them in their official capacities.

Gattis v. Phelps · filed 2009-09-14

Thus, though we agree with the District Court that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars any monetary claims against the JTVCC and its employees in their official capacities, we note that Gattis correctly argues that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar his damages claims against the defendants inasmuch as he sued them in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity absent a waiver, and the Ex Parte Young exception requires a claim for prospective relief against an individual state official.

May v. North Texas State Hospital · filed 2009-10-29

Since immunity has not been waived and the Ex Parte Young exception does not apply, the district court correctly held that the Eleventh Amendment precluded May’s Section 1983 claim against North Texas State Hospital.

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

McCoy v. Carter-Jones Timber Company · filed 2009-11-09

The State of Arkansas did not waive its immunity, nor did Congress abrogate that immunity when it enacted § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for a state instrumentality.

Burrell v. Teacher's Retirement System · filed 2009-11-16

Regardless, the district court did not err in dismissing his federal claims based on Eleventh Amendment immunity because TRSA is an instrumentality of the state as provided by Ala. Code § 16-25-2(b). See Manders, 338 F.3d at 1308-09; see also Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2310, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989) (noting that Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity with the passage of § 1983).

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

Ali v. Howard · filed 2009-11-16

As the State of Delaware did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity, we agree that Ali’s § 1983 claims against defendants for monetary damages are barred.

Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so claims against a state or its agency are barred unless immunity is waived.

Cox v. State of Texas · filed 2009-12-03

Accordingly, Appellees’ state law and § 1983 claims are barred unless Texas or TDCJ has waived its immunity. ... Neither Texas nor TDCJ has waived its immunity; therefore, Appellees’ claims against them are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

SHARIFF v. Poole · filed 2010-01-20

The Supreme Court has held that, absent waiver by the State or valid congressional override, the Eleventh Amendment bars a damages action against a state in federal court. ... This bar remains in effect when State officials are sued for damages in their official capacity. ... Considering the merits of the current case, the Court finds that there is no issue of material fact concerning the asserted immunity. Accordingly, such claims are dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency, and claims for money damages or retrospective declaratory relief against state officials in their official capacities, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Hubbart v. State of Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection · filed 2010-01-22

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the State of Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection, and the claims for money damages and retrospective declaratory relief against the state official defendants in their official capacities, as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims against the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Johnson v. TX Board of Pardons & Paroles · filed 2010-01-26

The district court correctly determined that his suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and Heck.

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

Johnson v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles · filed 2010-01-26

The district court correctly determined that his suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and Heck.

State officials sued in their official capacities are immune from monetary damages in a Section 1983 action.

King v. Dingle · filed 2010-03-11

The Eleventh Amendment protects the State, and the arms of the State, from liability for monetary damages in a Section 1983 action.

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

Andino v. Fischer · filed 2010-03-17

Accordingly, for substantially the reasons set forth in the Report the Court adopts the Report’s factual and legal analyses and determinations, as well as its substantive recommendations, in their entirety as the Court’s ruling on the underlying motions. ... Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, including suits against state officials acting in official capacity, and there has been no waiver for § 1983 claims by New York State.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars money damages under § 1983 against state officials sued in their official capacities, but it permits prospective injunctive relief.

Ward v. Members of the Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University · filed 2010-03-24

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars recovery of money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state officials sued in their official capacities. ... The Eleventh Amendment does permit prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in their official capacities. ... The court will deny the defendants’ motion for dismissal or summary judgment premised on Eleventh Amendment immunity in that Ward does not seek recovery of damages against any of the defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state Eleventh Amendment immunity; damages claims against state officers in their official capacity are barred, but claims for prospective injunctive relief may proceed.

Laborde v. Rivera-Dueno · filed 2010-03-31

The enactment of Section 1983 did not serve to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... In light of the controlling case law regarding Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs claims for damages against Defendant Rivera in his official capacity. However, Plaintiffs claims for prospective injunctive relief will survive Defendant’s Eleventh Amendment immunity challenge.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state agency and state officials sued in their official capacities, subject to exceptions.

Bowlin v. Arkansas Department of Health · filed 2010-04-06

We agree with the district court that Bowlin’s claims against the Department and Dr. Halverson, Brown, and Murphy, in their official capacities, fail on immunity grounds.

Section 1983 does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims against a state attorney general in his official capacity.

Boldt v. Myers · filed 2010-04-20

The district court properly dismissed Boldt’s claims against the Oregon Attorney General because he was entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Henderson v. Jones · filed 2010-05-18

As an initial matter, the district court correctly concluded that to the extent that Henderson has raised claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities, such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against prison officers in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Abraham v. Costello · filed 2010-06-11

Defendants, while acting in their official capacities, are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so it does not permit damages claims against state officials in their official capacities.

Walker v. Institutional Division Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 2010-06-17

Section 1983 does not, explicitly or by its clear language, indicate on its face an intent to abrogate the immunity of the states.

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

Graniela v. Vélez-Arocho · filed 2010-07-13

The enactment of Section 1983 did not serve to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A Section 1983 claim for prospective injunctive relief may proceed against a state official connected to enforcement of the challenged law under the Ex Parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Olsen · filed 2010-07-15

The court, therefore, concludes that Plaintiffs meet the Ex Parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, there are no grounds for dismissal of their action under such doctrine.

A state corrections department protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity cannot be sued for damages under § 1983.

Rossi v. Nevada Department of Correctio · filed 2010-08-02

As to Rossi’s remaining damages claim against the Nevada Department of Corrections, it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Hardy v. City of New York · filed 2010-08-12

Insofar as Hardy asserts § 1983 claims for damages against State defendants in their official capacities, those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are therefore dismissed.

State corrections departments and their components are immune from Section 1983 suits in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Green v. Department of Corrections · filed 2010-09-08

The District Court properly dismissed the claims brought against the DOC and its components. Under the Eleventh Amendment, states and state agencies are immune from suit in federal court.

Section 1983 claims against a state juvenile development center and its staff in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the center is an arm of the state.

Betts v. New Castle Youth Development Center · filed 2010-09-13

In sum, because Pennsylvania law provides, and Betts concedes, that institutions for juvenile delinquents are state institutions existing within the Department of Public Welfare and YDC was, in fact, managed by DPW, we hold that the District Court did not err in granting Eleventh Amendment immunity to YDC and its staff in their official capacities.

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

Cook v. Floyd · filed 2010-09-16

Section 1983 did not abrogate ... the Commonwealth’s Eleventh Amendment immunity and the Commonwealth did not waive it.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity; claims for monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities are barred.

Baxter v. Adam · filed 2010-09-29

A suit under § 1983 against either the state or an agency of the state is absolutely barred by the Eleventh Amendment unless it meets one of three exceptions.

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

Bernofsky v. Road Home Corp. · filed 2010-09-30

The text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not expressly override the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state department of corrections.

Skinner v. Arizona Department of Corrections · filed 2010-10-12

The district court properly dismissed all of Skinner’s claims against the Arizona Department of Corrections as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Howard v. New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services · filed 2010-10-28

The damages and attorney fees claims against DYFS were properly dismissed instead of stayed because DYFS is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. ... Whittaker and Lease in their official capacities are similarly immune from a suit for damages.

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

Calhoun v. Department of Corrections · filed 2010-10-29

The district court correctly concluded that Calhoun’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Giebel v. Bonilla · filed 2010-11-22

The district court properly dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment Giebel’s claims for damages against defendants that are arms of the State of Montana or who are state officials sued in their official capacities.