42 U.S.C. § 1983

Michigan district courts are arms of the state and have Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 damages claims.

Pucci v. Nineteenth District Court · filed 2010-12-16

In concluding that potential financial liability is the only determinative factor—or the near-determinative factor—in establishing whether a state court is an arm of the state for purposes of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, the district court strayed from the appropriate analysis of taking the other factors into account. In the case of Michigan’s trial-level district courts, the other three factors far outweigh the fact that local funding units such as Dearborn may bear the financial repercussions of a lawsuit filed against a district court, its judges, or its employees.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, and state agencies are immune from claims for damages or prospective relief under it.

Cunningham v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents · filed 2011-04-20

The Supreme Court has determined that Congress did not intend to abrogate state immunity by passing 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, so those will be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1).

A § 1983 claim against a state agency sued in its own name is barred when the agency has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Brait Builders Corp. v. Massachusetts, Division of Capital Asset Management · filed 2011-05-02

Pursuant to these principles, it is perfectly clear that Brait's claims in the complaint are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, since Brait sued DCAM in the latter's own name.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state corrections employees sued in their official capacities because the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims.

Gregory v. McKennon · filed 2011-06-22

“[T]he Eleventh Amendment bars recovering § 1983 money damages from TDCJ officers in their official capacities.” ... Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of his claims for money damages against all TDCJ employees, including Myra L. Walker and B. Livingston, to the extent that he has sued them in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against states are barred by the Eleventh Amendment unless the state consents to suit.

Gross v. City of New York · filed 2011-06-27

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against states, absent their consent.

Section 1983 does not permit individuals to sue a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Higgins v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES · filed 2011-07-07

The Department, as an arm of the State of Texas, retains its immunity from suit by individuals under § 1983. ... Thus, the motion to dismiss the claims against the Department based on Eleventh Amendment immunity is granted.

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

Higgins ex rel. McCall v. Texas Department of Health Services · filed 2011-07-07

The Department, as an arm of the State of Texas, retains its immunity from suit by individuals under § 1983.

A state agency is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim.

Sutton v. Georgia Correctional Industries · filed 2011-08-05

Sutton sought compensatory and punitive damages against GCI and the three men under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... For the reasons stated in the district court’s March 10 order, GCI was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and that the complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against the men.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against a Georgia sheriff’s deputy for law-enforcement acts are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the deputy acts as an arm of the state.

Townsend v. Coffee County · filed 2011-08-09

Defendant Grantham is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the § 1983 claims Plaintiff brings against him in his official capacity are dismissed.

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

Sadid v. Idaho State University · filed 2011-08-10

Finally, ISU’s Eleventh Amendment immunity has not been abrogated by congressional authorization. “We cannot conclude that § 1983 was intended to disregard the well-established immunity of a State from being sued without its consent.”

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

Woods v. First Correctional Medical Inc. · filed 2011-08-18

Accordingly, we agree that Woods’ section 1983 claims against the JVCC for monetary damages are barred.

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

Rodrigues v. Fort Lee Board of Education · filed 2011-09-09

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ immunity.

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

Freeman v. Department of Corrections · filed 2011-10-06

As an initial matter, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

A state can invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity in a Section 1983 action.

Grover-Tsimi v. State of Minnesota · filed 2011-10-11

Second, the district court properly granted the two motions to dismiss, see Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 380 F.3d 316, 317 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo standard of review), because the State of Minnesota enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from this suit, see Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007), and the complaint contained insufficient factual allegations to support the described claims against the City of Minnetonka and the two named police officers, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

Section 1983 permits claims for prospective injunctive relief against state officials sued in their official capacities, although the Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against them in those capacities.

Antonetti v. Monin · filed 2011-10-12

Finally, although the district court correctly concluded that the Eleventh Amendment bars actions against state officials sued in their official capacities when damages are sought, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits seeking prospective relief against state officials. Dismissal was therefore improper as to the claims for injunctive relief against defendants in their official capacities.

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

Rickey Beaver v. Western State Hospital · filed 2011-11-02

The district court properly dismissed Beaver’s claims for monetary damages against Western State Hospital and Dr. Deem in her official capacity on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Camm v. Scott · filed 2011-11-30

Plaintiffs do not assert that Congress has abrogated Florida’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, and it is clear that § 1983 has not done so.

Section 1983 claims against a state board may be barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

McMillan v. New York State Board of Elections · filed 2011-12-07

The district court correctly dismissed McMillan’s claims against the State Board as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims cannot evade Eleventh Amendment immunity by naming JUA instead of the Commonwealth.

Colón-Rivera v. Asociación de Suscripción Conjunta del Seguro de Responsabilidad Obligatorio · filed 2011-12-13

The Eleventh Amendment bars claims against the state or state officers acting in their official capacities except to the extent that plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief. ... Plaintiffs may not circumvent this constitutional bar by seeking damages from JUA instead of from the Commonwealth.

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

Torrence v. Sobina · filed 2011-12-27

For substantially the reasons provided by the Magistrate Judge, we agree that Torrence’s claims against PDPP are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Whitlock v. Director Tdcj-Cid · filed 2012-01-25

To the extent that Whitlock sued the TDCJ officials in their official capacity for monetary damages, the district court correctly determined that the Eleventh Amendment barred such claims.

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

Jones v. Courtney · filed 2012-02-16

First, with respect to abrogation, it has been settled law for over three decades that § 1983—the ultimate basis for Mr. Jones’s claim in this case—does not abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Boyd v. Office of Risk Insurance Manag · filed 2012-03-06

The district court properly dismissed Boyd’s action because California state agencies are immune from suit in federal court, and Boyd failed to amend to state a claim against any individual defendant despite an opportunity to do so.

The Eleventh Amendment immunizes states, state corrections departments, and state officials sued in their official capacities from § 1983 claims.

Mauwee v. Palmer · filed 2012-03-06

Dismissal of Mauwee’s claims against the State of Nevada, the Nevada Department of Corrections, and state officials in their official capacities was proper because these defendants are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 official capacity claims against a Georgia sheriff are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Stanfill v. Talton · filed 2012-03-29

Thus, Sheriff Taitón is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity against official capacity claims.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against a TDCJ officer in her official capacity.

Mitchell v. Quarterman · filed 2012-05-15

Mitchell’s claims against Ruthven in her official capacity, meanwhile, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities · filed 2012-05-16

It is well-settled that Congress did not abrogate state immunity through § 1983.

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

Blanchard v. Newton · filed 2012-06-07

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

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

Johnson v. United States · filed 2012-06-14

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state university board and its officials in their official capacities.

Shuler v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama · filed 2012-07-03

To the extent this claim is against the individual defendants in their official capacity or against the Board itself, the claim fails because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Monroe v. Bryan · filed 2012-08-08

Accordingly, § 1983 claims for monetary damages against a state, state agency, or a state official in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars recovery of money damages under § 1983 against defendants in their official capacities.

Nasious v. State Of Colorado · filed 2012-08-27

We agree with the district court that the Eleventh Amendment bars Nasious from recovering, under § 1983, money damages against defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state or state court are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless that immunity is waived or abrogated.

Bourne v. State of NH et al. · filed 2012-09-14

The Eleventh Amendment bars Bourne's claims against the State and the NHSC. ... The NHSC is an arm of state government, and the State has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for the type of claims asserted by Bourne in this case.

Section 1983 does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity for a damages claim against a state agency official in an official capacity.

Pretlow v. McPherson · filed 2012-09-27

“when a suit seeks money damages against an official of a state agency, suing that official in his or her official capacity, then the ‘real party in interest’ is the state, and the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, § 1983 does not affect this principle.

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

Johnson v. Warden · filed 2012-09-27

As an initial matter, the district court was correct to conclude the Eleventh Amendment barred the claims brought against the prison officials in their official capacities.

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

Democratic-Republican Organization v. Guadagno · filed 2012-10-11

Each of Plaintiffs’ claims is brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... I also dismissed, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, Plaintiffs’ claim against Guadagno for monetary damages.

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

Sosebee v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission · filed 2012-10-16

Section 1983 does not override the Eleventh Amendment and a state agency retains its immunity from suit.

Section 1983 claims against a state university medical center are barred in federal court by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Sandy Sykes v. United States · filed 2012-11-29

All civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against the University of Cincinnati Medical Center are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Fox Salerno v. State of Arizona · filed 2013-01-02

The district court properly dismissed Salerno’s claims against the state of Arizona and defendants in their official capacities because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against a state and its department.

Lewis Harry, Jr. v. Arizona, State Of · filed 2013-01-18

The district court properly dismissed Harry’s claims against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Department of Corrections because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Jones v. Beverly Hills Unified School District · filed 2013-01-18

To the extent that Jones alleged § 1983 claims in the operative complaint, dismissal of those claims was proper because they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 claims against state agencies and, in appropriate circumstances, state officials acting in their official capacities.

Robinson v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2013-01-22

Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants the State of New York Department of Insurance and Charles Bardong are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Harper-Bey v. State of New Jersey · filed 2013-01-30

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a state court and its employees in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not consented to suit.

Robinson v. New Jersey Mercer County Vicinage-Family Division · filed 2013-02-15

Although Robinson stresses factors of locality, the Vicinage was, as of 2008, clearly a part of the State of New Jersey; thus, both the court itself and its employees in their official capacities were unconsenting state entities entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Lyman v. OASAS · filed 2013-02-26

To the extent that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint seeks monetary relief and/or nonprospective injunctive relief against the individual Defendants in their official capacities, and against Defendant OASAS, the Court finds that they are immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment; and, therefore, grants this portion of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

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

Watson v. Department of Services for Children, Youths & Their Families Delaware · filed 2013-03-26

Similar to the § 1981 claim, DSCYF has Eleventh Amendment immunity with regard to the § 1983 claims.

States and state agencies are immune from § 1983 suits unless the state waives its immunity.

Bryant v. Cherna · filed 2013-03-28

However, the Eleventh Amendment protects a state or state agency from a § 1983 suit, unless the state has waived its own immunity, see MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Bell Atl.-Pa., 271 F.3d 491, 503-04 (3d Cir. 2001), and Pennsylvania has expressly withheld its consent to be sued.

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

Bullard v. Pennsylvania Bureau of Unempl · filed 2013-04-03

However, the vehicle for bringing Bullard’s constitutional claims, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,3 does not abrogate Pennsylvania’s immunity from suit.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity or permit a retroactive monetary award from the state treasury.

North East Medical Services, Inc. v. California Department of Health Care Services, Health & Human Services Agency · filed 2013-04-04

The majority concluded that § 1983 did not create a right of action for money damages in that case. Id. at 675–77. The Court reasoned, in part, that although private parties may sue a state under § 1983 in some cases, “a federal court’s remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief [under Ex parte Young] . . . .” Id. at 677. Accordingly, the federal courts are powerless to make “a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury.” Id. As such, we reject the Centers’ similar argument under Edelman.

A district attorney’s office acting as a state office while prosecuting a defendant is immune from a § 1983 claim under the Eleventh Amendment.

Zabasky v. American International Group, Inc. · filed 2013-04-24

In prosecuting Zabasky, the DAO was acting as a State of California office and was immune under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against a state official in her official capacity when the Eleventh Amendment bars the claim.

Thomas v. Varano · filed 2013-06-04

To the extent Thomas seeks money damages against McCarty in her official capacity, our vacatur does not revive that portion of his claim because, as the District Court explained, that portion is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Manuel v. Atkins · filed 2013-06-05

As the state has not consented, DelDOT is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Bazell v. the People of the State of Cal · filed 2013-06-20

Dismissal of Bazell’s § 1983 action was proper because Bazell’s claims against the state of California are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Eleventh Amendment immunity can bar § 1983 claims against a state agency and state officials sued in their official capacities.

Carlson v. Minnesota Department of Employment & Economic Development · filed 2013-07-23

Stephen Carlson brought this action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, its Commissioner, and the Governor of Minnesota. ... We agree with the district court that Carlson's claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and the Younger abstention doctrine.

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

Buckley v. New York · filed 2013-08-07

As stated previously, the Court finds that the 11th Amendment bars the § 1983 claims against the State, SUNY, and the individual Defendants in their official capacities.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a state in federal court absent waiver.

Patrick Missud, I v. State of California · filed 2013-08-19

The district court properly dismissed Missud’s claims against the State of California on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state absent waiver.

Missud v. California · filed 2013-08-19

The district court properly dismissed Missud’s claims against the State of California on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a state or its agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent consent.

Jensen v. Washington State Department of Corrections · filed 2013-10-23

The district court properly dismissed all claims against the state of Washington Department of Corrections because absent consent, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states and their agencies.

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

Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2013-10-28

As the Court has already stated in its memorandum opinion [57] ruling on the Eleventh Amendment motions to dismiss, neither § 1983 nor § 1985 abrogate the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from this suit.

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

King v. Christie · filed 2013-11-08

Indeed, it is clear that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, even when used to assert a Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Alston v. Kean University · filed 2013-12-19

As noted above, § 1983 does not abrogate New Jersey’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Quern, 440 U.S. at 340-41, and thus, to the extent that Alston would use § 1983 as the vehicle to assert his Fourteenth Amendment claim, the Eleventh Amendment would still bar the claim, see Capogrosso v. Supreme Ct. of N.J., 588 F.3d 180, 185 (3d Cir. 2009).

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Williams ex rel. Samayoa v. Board of Regents · filed 2014-01-06

Congress did not, however, abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A § 1983 claim for prospective injunctive relief against a state official in an official capacity avoids Eleventh Amendment immunity only if it alleges an ongoing violation of federal law.

Lundeen v. Rhoad · filed 2014-01-07

Because the Amended Complaint fails to identify an ongoing violation of federal law, it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and fails to state a claim and will be dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against a state, its agency, and state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not waived it.

Carl Fox, III v. State of Mississippi · filed 2014-01-08

Fox does not dispute that the District is an agency of the State of Mississippi. As the State of Mississippi has not waived its immunity, the district court properly dismissed Fox’s claims against Mississippi and the District and against Waggener, Sessums, Coats, French, and Sigman in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against a state, its agency, and state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not waived it.

Carl Fox, III v. State of Mississippi · filed 2014-01-20

As the State of Mississippi has not waived its immunity, the district court properly dismissed Fox’s claims against Mississippi and the District and against Waggener, Sessums, Coats, French, and Sigman in their official capacities.

Eleventh Amendment immunity can bar § 1983 claims against state officers sued in their official capacities.

Bonilla v. Jamison · filed 2014-01-27

The district court properly dismissed Bonilla’s claims against defendants in their official capacities because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages claims against a state, a state agency, or a state official in an official capacity when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Bethea v. Delaware · filed 2014-02-07

Accordingly, § 1983 claims for monetary damages against a State, state agency, or a state official in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Parkell v. Danberg · filed 2014-02-25

Accordingly, § 1983 claims for monetary damages against a State, state agency, or a state official in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Watson v. Division of Child Support Services · filed 2014-03-24

Congressional abrogation is also not at issue because “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment does not by its own force override the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, nor did Congress abrogate that immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” which provides a mechanism for enforcing constitutional rights in federal court.

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

Amin v. Voigtsberger · filed 2014-03-28

Eleventh Amendment immunity has not been abrogated by Congress or waived by Colorado or Wyoming. Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on the official-capacity claims for damages.

Pennsylvania’s Board of Probation and Parole is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 suit.

Spuck v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole · filed 2014-04-14

As the District Court correctly determined, the Eleventh Amendment affords the Board protection from suit in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Thunderbird v. State of Oregon · filed 2014-04-21

The district court properly dismissed Thunderbird’s § 1983 claims for damages against state agencies or state officials acting in their official capacities because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

States, SUNY, and state officials sued in their official capacities are immune from Section 1983 claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

Morales v. New York · filed 2014-05-22

Under the Eleventh Amendment, the state, SUNY and the individual defendants sued in their official capacities are immune from suit for Section 1983 claims.

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

Kotzev v. Ryan · filed 2014-05-29

The district court properly dismissed Kotvez’s § 1983 claims for damages against Ryan acting in his official capacity because Ryan is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a § 1983 action against a school district that is a state agency.

Brynjolfsson v. State Agency Los Angeles Unified School District · filed 2014-05-29

The district court properly dismissed Brynjolffson’s action against LAUSD on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for constitutional violations by state actors, but Pennsylvania and its courts have Eleventh Amendment immunity from claims for damages and injunctive relief.

Fontanez v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2014-06-20

The private right of action for suing state actors for constitutional violations is § 1983 — see Brown v. Philip Morris, Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 800 (3d Cir. 2001) — which the District Court correctly decided cannot stand here because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its courts enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity from both damages and injunctive relief.

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

Wilson v. Wheeler · filed 2014-07-30

The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s constitutional claims against defendants in their official capacities because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state agency can waive Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit by litigating without pressing the defense.

Waugh v. Nevada State Board of Cosmetology · filed 2014-08-06

In this circumstance, the Board unequivocally waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity as to this lawsuit.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim for reinstatement against a state official because reinstatement is prospective equitable relief that falls within the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Lane v. Central Alabama Community College · filed 2014-10-08

Here, Lane seeks equitable relief in the form of reinstatement of his employment. We have determined previously that requests for reinstatement constitute prospective injunctive relief that fall within the scope of the Ex parte Young exception and, thus, are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for constitutional violations under color of state law, subject to applicable immunities.

Draganov v. State of Washington · filed 2014-10-21

Moreover, the Eleventh Amendment bars Draganov’s action against the State of Washington.

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

Johnson v. Western State Colorado University · filed 2014-10-24

The State of Colorado has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Griess v. Colo., 841 F.2d 1042, 1044-45 (10th Cir.1988), and congressional enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340-345, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979).

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim seeking reinstatement under the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Lane v. Central Alabama Community College · filed 2014-11-24

In the light of our reinstatement precedents, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Lane’s official-capacity claim against Franks as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a federal court from deciding the merits of a Section 1983 damages claim against an arm of the state, requiring dismissal without prejudice.

Grajales v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority · filed 2015-01-12

... that the Eleventh Amendment presents a jurisdictional bar precluding evaluation on the merits of monetary claims against an arm of the state; ... the Court will dismiss without prejudice both the state retaliation action and the § 1983 claim.

A Georgia sheriff has Eleventh Amendment immunity from official-capacity § 1983 claims arising from decisions to hire and fire deputies.

Pellitteri v. Sheriff Chris Prine · filed 2015-01-13

On balance, we conclude that Sheriff Prine enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity against Ms. Pellitteri’s wrongful termination claims brought against him in his official capacity under § 1983 and the ADA.

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

Al-Deen v. Trustees of University of North Carolina Wilmington · filed 2015-04-06

Accordingly, plaintiffs due process and equal protection claims against the Trustees and any claim for § 1983 damages against defendants Battles, McFarland, and Olsen in them official capacities are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state agencies that are immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

Pierce v. Santa Maria Joint Union High School District · filed 2015-05-18

Santa Maria is immune from a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Santa Maria is a state agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when they seek retroactive monetary relief, but may proceed when they seek prospective injunctive relief.

Burks v. Retirement Systems of Alabama · filed 2015-06-12

The members of the PEEHIP Board and Bronner, in his capacity as secretáry-freasurer of PEEHIP, are also entitled to'Eleventh Amendment immunity on the public-education plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for monetary relief. The members of the PEEHIP Board and Bronner, in his capacity as secretary-treasurer of PEEHIP, are not" entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from the public-education plaintiffs’ claims for prospective injunctive relief under § 1983.

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

Watson v. Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission · filed 2015-07-01

Because Watson brought her claims against FJQC officials in their individual capacities, the Eleventh Amendment does not immunize them from suit. ... We reverse the district court’s dismissal of Watson’s claims against FJQC officials in their individual capacities for violations of § 1983, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and punitive damages, and we remand the case.

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

Linda Cone Selensky v. State of Alabama · filed 2015-07-22

Although Selensky cites no applicable federal statute that would indicate Congress’ intent to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, insofar as she is alleging a violation of her civil rights, she would be proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; however, “Congress has not abrogated ... eleventh amendment immunity in section 1983 cases.” Carr v. City of Florence, Ala., 916 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979)).

Section 1983 damages claims against a state official are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when they seek recovery of money from the state.

Comite Dirt Pit, Incorporated v. Bar · filed 2015-07-22

It is clear that the claims seek damages caused by LDWF enforcement actions, and thus in effect seek recovery of money from ... the state. We conclude that the district court correctly dismissed all claims for damages pursuant to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 allows a claim for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities for an ongoing violation of federal law despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Municipality of San Sebastian v. Rico · filed 2015-07-28

Thus, to the extent the Municipality seeks to require defendants Governor Garcia and Secretary Thomas to conform their future conduct to federal law, its claims survives the assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity pursuant to Ex Parte Young. ... Defendants’ reliance on the Pennhurst caveat, however, is misplaced because the Municipality’s cause of action here is clearly based on federal law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

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

Driver v. United States District Court for the District of California · filed 2015-08-05

The US. Supreme Court has made clear that § 1983 does not waive a state’s immunity from suit.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, which bars claims against states and state officers acting in their official capacities.

Goodall-Gaillard v. New Jersey Department of Corr · filed 2015-08-24

We may summarily dispose of this argument, for it is well established that Congress did not intend for § 1983 to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 344-45 (1979), and that sovereign immunity bars § 1983 claims against states and state officers acting in their official capacity, Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-67, 71 (1989).

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars recovery from the state through a § 1983 claim against state officials in their official capacities.

Parker v. Warden Stevenson · filed 2015-09-23

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgement to the extraction team in their official capacities because Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars suit and recovery from the state “even though individual officials are nominal defendants.”

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

Davis v. City of Philadelphia Family Co · filed 2015-10-09

Further, although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law under which Davis proceeds.

A Section 1983 action against a state agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent consent.

Blaisdell v. Hawaii Department of Public Sa · filed 2015-10-23

The district court properly dismissed Blaisdell’s action against the Hawaii Department of Public Safety because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state college are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity; the Ex Parte Young exception does not apply to the college itself.

Milward v. Shaheen · filed 2015-10-29

Under the Eleventh Amendment, states are immune from money damages in suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Therefore, the Ex Parte Young exception does not apply to Valencia College and Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the Plaintiffs’ claim against the college.

Section 1983 claims against state defendants may be barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity even when they nominally seek injunctive or declaratory relief.

Rasche v. Lane · filed 2015-12-08

Thus, while the Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against the state, its agencies, and its officials acting in their official capacities, it does not preclude claims against state officials for injunctive relief requiring them to comply with federal law. ... For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims against the Illinois Defendants, whether for damages or nominally seeking-injunctive or declaratory relief, are all barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Cecil Adams and Maxine Adams v. Harris County and Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the First Court of Appeals · filed 2015-12-09

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

A county emergency management office and coordinator that are not arms of the state lack Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit.

Van Orden v. Borough of Woodstown · filed 2015-12-11

Having considered each of the three factors above, the Court finds that on balance, Defendants have not carried their burden of demonstrating that the Salem County Office of Emergency Management and its Emergency Management Coordinator function as an arm of the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management. Consequently, and because it is well-settled that counties are not entitled to assert Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Salem County Defendants are subject to suit in federal court.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials despite Eleventh Amendment limits on damages claims.

Larson v. Kempker · filed 2005-05-02

Here, however, this omission is not fatal to Larson's claim. ... We hold that the district court had the discretion to order injunctive relief.

Section 1983 claims seeking monetary relief against an arm of the State or its officials may not proceed in federal court.

Ernst v. Rising · filed 2005-10-26

Four state-court judges from Michigan filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ... As we see it, the retirement system is most naturally characterized as an arm of the State. ... For these reasons and those elaborated below, the district court correctly characterized the retirement system as an arm of the State. Because plaintiffs have filed only federal claims that seek monetary relief or claims that primarily seek monetary relief and because the state-law claims must be dismissed regardless of the type of relief they seek, the district court correctly dismissed all claims.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Section 1983 claims against a state agency and state officials when the exception for prospective relief does not apply.

Kelly v. New York State Civil Service Commission · filed 2016-01-25

Upon review, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the Eleventh Amendment shields the defendants from Kelly’s Section 1983 and ADEA claims.

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

Brzozowski v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission · filed 2016-02-25

In enacting § 1983, Congress did not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against the CUIAB are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages and the injunctive relief sought.

Guevarra v. Seton Medical Center · filed 2016-03-03

Second, Guevarra’s § 1983 claims fail because the CUIAB enjoys absolute Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits for damages and the injunctive relief Guevarra seeks.

A state bar that is an arm of the state has Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 claims.

Nichols v. Alabama State Bar · filed 2016-03-10

After considering the four factors, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that the Alabama State Bar is an arm of the state of Alabama and thus enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from Nichols’s § 1983 claim.

A damages claim under § 1983 against an agency that is an arm of the state is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

T.D. v. Patton · filed 2016-03-16

As a result, the DDHS is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; barring plaintiffs claim for damages against it.

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

Doe v. University of Alabama · filed 2016-03-31

Congress has not abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 cases.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against a state official in an official capacity under the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Dye v. OFFICE OF RACING COMMISSION · filed 2010-02-25

Accordingly, this claim for injunctive relief against Defendant Post in his official capacity falls within the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity and will not be dismissed.

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

Jack Collins, III v. Dakota County District Court · filed 2011-10-20

After careful de novo review, see Great Rivers Habitat Alliance v. FEMA, 615 F.3d 985, 988 (8th Cir. 2010), we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons the district court stated, see Harris v. Mo. Court of Appeals, 787 F.2d 427, 429 (8th Cir. 1986) (state courts possess ... Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 suit).

Section 1983 does not permit plaintiffs to circumvent the Eleventh Amendment by seeking damages from JUA instead of the Commonwealth.

Colon-Rivera v. De Suscripcion · filed 2011-12-13

The Eleventh Amendment bars claims against the state or state officers acting in their official capacities except to the extent that plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677 (1974). Plaintiffs may not circumvent this constitutional bar by seeking damages from JUA instead of from the Commonwealth.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal suit against a Pennsylvania court because it has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Green v. Domestic Relations Section Court of Common Pleas "Compliance Unit" · filed 2016-05-12

Green’s claims are precluded by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally immunizes Pennsylvania, its agencies, and its employees acting in their official capacities, from suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court, see Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Laskaris v. Thornburgh, 661 F.2d 23, 25 (3d Cir. 1981).

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

Fish v. Kobach · filed 2016-05-17

Under a straightforward analysis, the Amended Complaint alleges ongoing violations of the NVKA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and ongoing constitutional violations. To the extent the Amended Complaint seeks prospective declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of the ‘Kansas DPOC law and a related regulation promulgated by the Secretary of State, the Ex parte Young doctrine therefore applies under the straightforward analysis required by Supreme Court precedent.

A state and its agencies generally have Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit in federal court, even if the suit seeks injunctive relief.

McGriff v. Pennsylvania State Civil Servi · filed 2016-05-25

It is well established that the Eleventh Amendment generally bars a civil rights suit in federal court that names the state as a defendant, even a claim seeking injunctive relief.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state official sued only in her official capacity are barred by the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Gresham v. Rutledge · filed 2016-07-27

Because the plaintiffs sued Leslie Rutledge only in her official capacity, the suit is in effect one against the state, which is immune from claims for damages by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment. ... The plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages are therefore dismissed.

Section 1983 does not allow a plaintiff to sue a state when the Eleventh Amendment bars the claim.

Cowan v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2016-07-29

Further, we agree with the magistrate judge that the Eleventh Amendment bars Cowan’s suit against the State of Oklahoma.

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

Canfield v. Office of the Secretary of State · filed 2016-08-30

Congress did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Alston v. Administrative Offices of Delaware Courts · filed 2016-09-06

Pertinent to Alston’s apparent cause of action, we recognize that Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when they seek relief for past violations rather than prospective relief for an ongoing violation.

Columbian Financial Corp. v. Stork · filed 2016-10-19

The court is convinced that the plaintiff seeks an impermissible form of relief under Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence. ... IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dk. 69) the first amended complaint as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity is granted.

A Section 1983 action against a state is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Novak v. State of Arizona · filed 2016-11-03

Dismissal with prejudice of Novak’s action against the State of Arizona was proper because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

California public school districts are immune from suit under § 1983 because they are state agencies for Eleventh Amendment purposes.

Chadam v. Palo Alto Unified Sch. Dist. · filed 2016-11-15

However, California public school districts are immune from suit under § 1983 because California public school districts are state agencies for Eleventh Amendment purposes.

A Florida sheriff acting as chief correctional officer in hiring and firing deputies is not an arm of the state and lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 suit.

Stanley v. Broward County Sheriff · filed 2016-12-14

Because the overall weight of the factors tips on the side of county status, we conclude that a Florida sheriff acting in this capacity is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A state prison and its officials sued in their official capacities are immune from this § 1983 suit seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Hobbs v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary · filed 2016-12-20

Because Hobbs sought money damages and injunctive relief against OSP and Brackenseik and Allen in their official capacities, all three are immune from suit.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Section 1983 claims against a California school district and its officials in their official capacities.

Richard Davis, III v. Folsom Cordova Unif. Sch. Dist · filed 2017-01-09

The district court properly dismissed all claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the District and the individual defendants in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment grounds.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state.

Stephens v. Oregon Driver & Motor Vehicles Services Division · filed 2017-01-30

The district court properly dismissed Stephens’ action against the State of Oregon on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Smith v. Delaware · filed 2017-02-21

Delaware has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court — although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Kawall v. State of New Jersey · filed 2017-03-02

While it is not entirely clear, it appears that Kawall is seeking to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and § 1983 does not abrogate New Jersey’s immunity.

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

El v. Michigan Department of State · filed 2017-03-17

“It is well established that § 1983 does not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979), and that Michigan has not consented to the filing of civil rights suits against it in federal court.”

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

Ejonga-Deogracias v. Department of Corrections · filed 2017-03-21

The district court properly dismissed Ejonga-Deogracias’s deliberate indifference claim against the Washington Department of Corrections because this claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar a § 1983 damages claim against a state official sued in her individual capacity.

Adams v. NaphCare, Inc. · filed 2017-03-31

However, when a state official is sued for damages in his or her individual capacity under § 1983, Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply, and the state official remains subject to liability.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 claims against a state board of elections.

Sloan v. Schulkin · filed 2017-05-03

As an initial matter, we agree with the District Court that the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars all of Sloan’s claims brought against the State Board under Section 1983.

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

Amaro v. Kirk · filed 2017-05-12

Therefore, the § 1983 claims for monetary damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

State officials sued in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 action.

Williams v. Lane · filed 2017-06-01

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against Oregon’s corrections department and state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, which Oregon did not waive through the Oregon Tort Claims Act.

Abraham v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2017-06-14

There was no error in granting summary judgment on Abraham’s § 1983 claims for damages against the Oregon Department of Corrections and state officials acting in their official capacities. The Eleventh Amendment bars those claims, see Brown v. Or. Dep't of Corr., 751 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2014), and Oregon did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court by enacting the Oregon Tort Claims Act, see Webber v. First Student, Inc., 928 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1269 (D. Or. 2013).

A state may invoke Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity against a § 1983 claim even if its agents committed a constitutional violation.

Erikson v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2017-06-20

The State may claim the benefit of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment even when a plaintiff may be able to prove that the State’s agents committed a constitutional violation.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 damages claims against the State Bar of California and the Committee of Bar Examiners.

Haroonian v. Committee of Bar Examiners · filed 2017-06-26

The district court properly dismissed Haroonian’s claims for damages against the State Bar of California and the Committee of Bar Examiners because those defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

California school districts and county offices of education are arms of the state and have Eleventh Amendment immunity from Section 1983 suits.

Sato v. Orange Cty. Dept. of Education · filed 2017-06-28

Considering all of the Mitchell factors together, we hold that California school districts and COEs, including defendant OCDE, remain arms of the state and continue to enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Wells v. City of Wilmington · filed 2017-06-28

The State of Delaware has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court; although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment- of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims for damages against a state official in her official capacity and claims for damages or injunctive relief against a state.

Malnes v. State of Arizona · filed 2017-06-30

Brian Edward Malnes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. ... The district court properly dismissed Malnes’s Fifteenth Amendment claim for damages against defendant Reagan in her official capacity, and for damages and injunctive relief against the State of Arizona, because the claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars official-capacity § 1983 damages claims against state officials.

Folsom v. Knutson · filed 2017-08-04

We agree with the district court, for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s September 4, 2015 R&R, that Mr. Folsom’s complaint fails to state any plausible constitutional violation by any of the defendants, and that the official capacity claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against a state or an arm of the state because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Nicholl v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia · filed 2017-08-07

Under the Eleventh Amendment, states are immune from money damages in § 1983 suits.

A Georgia sheriff acting in his official capacity is immune from a § 1983 claim concerning deadly force policies and deputy training because he acts as an arm of the state in those functions.

Brown v. Newton County Sheriff's Office · filed 2017-08-07

Thus, based on the Manders factors, the Court concludes that Sheriff Brown acts as an arm of the State for purposes of establishing deadly force policies and training his deputies accordingly. As an arm of the State, Sheriff Brown is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. ... The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion with respect to the § 1983 claim against Sheriff Brown in his official capacity.

Section 1983 claims against state prison employees for official acts covered by Eleventh Amendment immunity are barred.

Hendrix v. Lorie Davis, Director · filed 2017-08-09

Because the defendants are all employees of TDCJ- ID, their official acts fall within the scope and immunity of the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Georgia · filed 2017-08-25

In contrast, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities when the immunity applies.

Jayson Grumbles v. Livingston · filed 2017-08-30

To the extent that Grumbles sought monetary damages from the defendants in their official capacities, the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Devon Brown v. Florida Department of Revenue Office of Child Support Enforcement · filed 2017-09-27

Congress has not abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 cases and the Department has neither waived its immunity, nor consented to suit in federal court.

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

Marin v. Secretary Commonwealth of Penn · filed 2017-11-08

Marin’s claims against the Bureau are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which “has been interpreted to make states [and state agencies] generally immune from suit by private parties in federal court,” with exceptions not relevant here.

Section 1983 official capacity claims against a Georgia sheriff and jail commander for medical care provided to county jail detainees are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Palmer v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC · filed 2017-12-05

Based on that precedent, this Court must find that the sheriff and his jail commander are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on Palmer's official capacity claims.

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

Merrick v. Ryan · filed 2017-12-26

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Merrick’s deliberate indifference claim against Ryan in his official capacity because Ryan is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Jenkins v. Brill · filed 2018-01-22

Regardless, federal jurisdiction is lacking over the State of Georgia because the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution generally immunizes States from suit in federal court, and it is established “that § 1983 was not intended to abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 n.17 (1985).