42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 damages claims against the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education and West Chester University are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Bradley v. West Chester University of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education · filed 2018-01-26

Under our current jurisprudence, and under the current legal and ... practical realities of those institutions, both PASSHE and WCU are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and are thus not subject to suits for damages in federal court. We therefore uphold the District Court’s dismissal of the § 1983 claim against those institutions.

Section 1983 claims against a New York state agency such as OCFS are barred in federal court by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Kisembo v. NYS Office of Children & Family Servs. · filed 2018-02-01

In sum, plaintiffs have offered no legitimate reason to doubt whether OCFS qualifies as a state agency for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, their § 1983 claims against OCFS are subject to dismissal.

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

Boglin v. Bd. of Trs. of Ala. Agric. & Mech. Univ. · filed 2018-02-06

Here, neither exception applies since Alabama has not waived its immunity, ... and § 1983 does not represent an abrogation of the Eleventh Amendment.

State officials sued in their official capacities under § 1983 are generally entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, but that immunity does not bar claims for prospective relief to prevent federal constitutional violations.

Dunham v. Wainwright · filed 2018-02-22

While the defendants are generally entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims brought against them in their official capacities, they are not immune from Dunham’s claims seeking prospective relief to prevent federal constitutional violations.

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

Gray v. GEO Group · filed 2018-03-06

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Gray’s official-capacity claims for damages against the ODOC defendants because such claims are construed as claims against the state and are thus barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

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

Maben v. Thelen · filed 2018-04-03

However, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar Maben’s § 1983 claim against Thelen for damages in his personal capacity.

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

Clark v. Davis · filed 2018-05-23

The district court properly dismissed Clark’s claims seeking monetary damages as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state waives immunity or Congress abrogates it.

Lanteri v. State of Connecticut · filed 2018-06-08

As the district court determined, the Eleventh Amendment precludes a party from suing a state unless the state expressly waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that immunity. ... Connecticut has not waived its immunity. ... Nor has Congress abrogated it. ... Therefore, Lanteri’s § 1983 claims are barred.

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

Davis v. White · filed 2018-06-20

The claims against the Arkansas Parole Board and Arkansas Community Correction are subject to dismissal because these entities are immune from suit. These Defendants are agencies of the State of Arkansas and as such Plaintiff’s claims are claims against the State. Claims against the State or Arkansas are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state officials in their official capacities because Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity protects them.

Christopher Beaulieu a/k/a Crystal Beaulieu1 v. New Hampshire Governor, et al. · filed 2018-06-28

It is well settled that sovereign immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment prevents a plaintiff from suing government officials in their official capacities for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Pritchett v. Fairley · filed 2018-07-13

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Pritchett’s retaliation claim against Two Rivers Correctional Institution (“TRCI”) and defendants in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Abbott v. Cornwell II · filed 2018-07-20

Congress did not abrogate states’ immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a suit for prospective injunctive relief against a state official in her official capacity when the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law.

McDaniel v. Precythe · filed 2018-07-27

In August 2016, McDaniel sued Director Lombardi in his official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Under the exception established in Ex parte Young, however, a private party may sue state officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief. ... The “straightforward inquiry” set forth by the Supreme Court, therefore, demonstrates that McDaniel’s suit is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Meyer v. Schroeder · filed 2018-08-01

South Dakota is not consenting to this suit and § 1983 does not contain a clear legislative statement abrogating a state’s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

J.T. Hatcher v. State of Alabama Department of Human Services · filed 2018-08-29

Congress has not overridden a state’s immunity for § 1983 cases.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against states and their agencies.

Brown v. Yordy · filed 2018-09-18

We reject as without merit Brown’s contentions that the district court improperly dismissed his claims against the Idaho Board of Corrections and the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole. See S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 508 (9th Cir. 1990) (Eleventh Amendment immunity bars claims against states and their agencies).

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

Darling v. Commonwealth of Massaschusetts · filed 2018-10-09

Moreover, the Commonwealth has not consented to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in its own or the federal courts, see Woodbridge v. Worcester State Hosp., 384 Mass. 38, 44–45 (1981), and Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's immunity from suit in federal court.

Section 1983 provides the remedy for Section 1981 claims against state actors, but it does not overcome a state agency’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

McCurdy v. State of Alabama Disability Determination Service · filed 2018-10-23

Any claim for a violation of Section 1981 must be brought through the remedy provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... For these reasons, we affirm the District Court’s holding that DDS is an arm of the state and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on McCurdy’s Section 1981 claims.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against Pennsylvania, its courts, and state officials in their official capacities.

Fake v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2018-12-27

First, we conclude that the District Court properly determined that the Eleventh Amendment barred both Appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and the claims against Judge Thompson, Judge Murphy, and Chief Counsel Graci in their official capacities.

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

White v. South Dakota Department of Correction · filed 2018-12-28

The Supreme Court has explained that Congress, in passing 42 U.S.C. § 1983, did not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. ... Thus, White’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state immunity from suit, so the Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against unconsenting state officials in their official capacities.

Munt v. Roy · filed 2019-01-10

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

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

Brooks v. CDOC · filed 2019-02-05

But Colorado has not waived its immunity from prisoner civil rights actions, see Griess v. Colorado, 841 F.2d 1042, 1044-45 (10th Cir. 1988) (per curiam), and Congress did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting § 1983, see Ellis, 163 F.3d at 1196.

Eleventh Amendment immunity limits § 1983 claims against states and state agencies in federal court.

Deanco Healthcare, LLC v. Becerra · filed 2019-02-06

Moreover, the Eleventh Amendment limits claims brought under § 1983. ... Accordingly, Defendants the OAG and State of California are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed from this lawsuit with prejudice.

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

Schlumpberger v. Osborne · filed 2019-02-26

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

A county human services department that is an arm of the state has Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 claims.

Estate of Goodwin by and through Alvarado v. Connell · filed 2019-03-12

Because the remaining Mount Healthy factors weigh in favor of a finding that county human services departments are arms of the state, the Court agrees that JHS is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to plaintiffs' § 1983 claims.

State courts are arms of the state and are immune from § 1983 claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

Yamano v. State of Hawaii Judiciary · filed 2019-03-20

The district court properly dismissed Yamano’s claim against defendant State of Hawaii Judiciary because her claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Clarke v. Russell R. McMurry, P.E. · filed 2019-04-02

Second, Congress did not abrogate Georgia’s sovereign “immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Schopler v. Bliss, 903 F.2d 1373, 1379 n.4 (11th Cir. 1990).

A § 1983 claim against a state officer cannot proceed under the Ex parte Young exception when the requested relief addresses past harm rather than an ongoing violation of federal law.

Drown v. Utah State Office of Education · filed 2019-04-08

Drown asserts the continued retention in her permanent file of a letter of reprimand that resulted from discrimination constitutes an ongoing violation of federal law, and her request to have the letter removed from the file is properly characterized as prospective relief. We agree with the district court, however, that these circumstances do not allow application of the Ex parte Young exception.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state waives immunity or Congress abrogates it.

Taylor v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families · filed 2019-04-17

Second, to the extent that Ms. Taylor asserts any new claims against DSCYF pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, these claims are barred under the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 allows a suit for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma · filed 2019-05-08

The Growers’ suit, which seeks only prospective, declaratory, and injunctive relief, is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Removing a Section 1983 suit to federal court does not waive a state university board’s immunity from monetary damages.

Page v. Hicks · filed 2019-05-10

But under this Court’s precedent interpreting Lapides, this removal did not affect the Board’s immunity from liability for monetary damages.

State entities that are arms of the state are immune from § 1983 suits for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment.

Al-Haj v. OMH State of N.Y. · filed 2019-05-10

This is a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages only against Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, the New York State Office of Mental Health, and Dr. Scott Weisner, who is alleged to be an employee of one of those entities. ... The report correctly concludes that Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center and the New York State Office of Mental Health are “arms of the state” to which the “immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends.” ... The Court must therefore dismiss all claims against those entities.

A § 1983 claim seeking only prospective injunctive and declaratory relief against state officials is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Durham v. Martin · filed 2019-05-14

The court therefore finds that the § 1983 claim set forth in Count II of the Amended Complaint, insofar as the plaintiff requests prospective injunctive and declaratory relief only, is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Barry v. The State of New York · filed 2019-06-03

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity suits against state officers for prospective relief to stop an ongoing violation of federal law, but not for money damages.

Wheeler v. Maui Department Of Public Safety · filed 2019-06-04

Defendants named in their official capacities are subject to suit under § 1983 only “for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief . . . to enjoin an alleged ongoing violation of federal law.” ... Wheeler’s claims against official capacity Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice.

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

Tiedeman v. D.O.C. · filed 2019-06-07

The Supreme Court has explained that Congress, in passing 42 U.S.C. § 1983, did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. ... Thus, Tiedeman’s claims against the DOC, a state entity, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).

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

Shirley v. Loudon County Sheriffs Office · filed 2019-06-10

The claim against Loudon County Sherriff’s Office cannot proceed because the Sheriff’s Office is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits for money damages under § 1983.

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

Francisco v. Edmonson · filed 2019-06-10

Further, Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting Section 1983.

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

Tung v. Newsom · filed 2019-06-13

The district court properly dismissed Tung’s official capacity claims against defendants as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Cooper v. State of Hawaii Department of Taxation · filed 2019-06-20

Because Plaintiff asserts his substantive due process claim against specific Defendants in their “individual capacities,” the Eleventh Amendment is not implicated.

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

Barton v. Otsuka Pharmaceuticals · filed 2019-06-21

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against a state corrections department and prison staff sued in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Kokinda v. Pennsylvania Department of Cor · filed 2019-06-24

The District Court properly concluded that Kokinda’s claimed violations of §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986 against the DOC and the individual prison staff members sued in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

O'Reilly v. University of Mississippi Medical Center and its School of Dentistry · filed 2019-06-24

There has been no such abrogation or waiver as to plaintiff’s § 1981 or § 1983 claims or any of her state law claims.

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

White v. The State of New York · filed 2019-06-24

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Johnson v. McMahon · filed 2019-06-26

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Colon v. Vance · filed 2019-07-03

Congress has not abrogated the States’ immunity for claims under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Kilman v. CDOC · filed 2019-07-09

But Congress’s enactment of § 1983 did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Donahue v. Brownback · filed 2019-07-09

It is also well-established that official-capacity § 1983 claims against a state official (like former Governor Brownback) are claims against the state.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state corrections department and a prison it controls are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

TUCKER v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-07-15

The § 1983 claims against Bayside State Prison and NJDOC are dismissed with prejudice because they are immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

State agencies and their employees sued in their official capacities are immune from § 1983 damages claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

Haynes v. Aramark Correctional Services, Inc. · filed 2019-07-18

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against all named Defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as are any claims against TDOC itself.

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

Mobley III v. Davis · filed 2019-07-24

Texas has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Congress did not abrogate that immunity when enacting Section 1983.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Section 1983 claims against state agencies.

Romano v. Nv Division of Water Resources · filed 2019-07-24

To the extent Romano sought to allege claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court properly determined that the action was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

State employees sued in their official capacities are immune from § 1983 claims for monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment.

Ishman v. Ballard · filed 2019-07-24

Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, has brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by two Defendants. ... Judge Erwin concluded that Defendants—both of whom are state employees—enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity insofar as Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against them in their official capacities. ... The Court adopts Judge Erwin’s recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims to the extent monetary damages are sought.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, which extends to state correctional facilities.

Morgan v. Downstate Correctional Facility · filed 2019-08-05

The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Downstate as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Kareem of the Family Hodge v. The Texas Office of Attorney General · filed 2019-08-06

Here, the district court did not err in dismissing Hodge’s §1983 complaint because the court properly determined that the Texas AG’s child support division is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Cannon v. NYS Commissioner of Social Services · filed 2019-08-07

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Ingram v. Rachal · filed 2019-08-12

Here, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacity for monetary damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Sabino v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · filed 2019-08-16

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Rodgers v. Texas Department of Family Services · filed 2019-08-26

Congress has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the department is an arm of the state and its immunity was neither waived nor abrogated.

SHICK v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-08-26

The Court will dismiss the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as a defendant because it is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution.

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

Franklin v. Franklin · filed 2019-08-27

Here, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacity for monetary damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim for prospective relief can avoid Eleventh Amendment immunity if it alleges an ongoing violation of federal law by the state official.

Doe v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner · filed 2019-08-28

Therefore, a claim against a state official in his official capacity will avoid Eleventh Amendment immunity if the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law by the state official and seeks prospective relief.

Section 1983 claims against an Alabama state university are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the university is the sole defendant.

Mitchell v. University of North Alabama · filed 2019-08-30

The magistrate judge dismissed Ms. Mitchell’s §§ 1981 and 1983 claims based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and the applicable statute of limitations. ... Alternatively, we agree with the magistrate judge’s ruling. ... Because UNA is a state university in Alabama, it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits against a state or its corrections department.

Megginson v. The State of New York · filed 2019-09-04

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York and DOCCS are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 claims seeking prospective employment relief against a state official in an official capacity may proceed despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Turner v. Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University · filed 2019-09-06

Accordingly, Dr. Hugine is not entitled to sovereign immunity for the §§ 1981 and 1983 race discrimination and retaliation claims.

States and state corrections departments are immune from § 1983 suits under the Eleventh Amendment.

(PC) Beaton v. Berlin · filed 2019-09-10

Both Defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities are barred when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Mitchell v. Sterling · filed 2019-09-11

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 60) and incorporates it herein. Defendants are granted summary judgment only as to Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against state agencies that are arms of the state are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Stringer v. Cruz · filed 2019-09-12

The CDCR and the Board of Parole Hearings must be dismissed because they are arms of the State of California and have Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Henton v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction · filed 2019-09-12

When enacting § 1983, Congress did not abrogate the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state corrections department or an officer in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Baker v. (Oregon Dept. of Corrections) O.D.O.C · filed 2019-09-17

The Eleventh Amendment similarly bars § 1983 claims for money damages against ODOC or Young in his official capacity.

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

Lau v. Schneiderman · filed 2019-09-24

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against an unconsenting state when the award would be paid from the state treasury.

Beck v. State of Cal. · filed 1979-10-19

The instant action, as were Edelman and Quern, is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff herein does not seek prospective injunctive relief; rather he seeks to recover $600,000 in damages (roughly the fair market value of his property) for the alleged deprivation of all use and enjoyment of his property. Furthermore, it is clear that the defendant State of California has not consented to this suit. Therefore, in view of Edelman and Quern this court has no alternative but to dismiss this action as against the defendant State of California.

A state agency that is an arm of the state is immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Sanders v. Department of Child Services · filed 2019-09-27

While Mr. Sanders does not specifically state his legal theory, his complaint appears to adumbrate constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Because the Eleventh Amendment bars this particular suit against DCS, the court GRANTS DCS’s motion (ECF 7) and DISMISSES this case.

Section 1983 claims cannot proceed against a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and claims for monetary damages against state officials acting in their official capacity are barred.

Englert v. Hopkins · filed 2019-09-27

Because Montana and its agencies have immunity from suit in Federal Court under the Eleventh Amendment, Judge Johnston recognized that Englert’s claims ... against the Montana Department of Corrections cannot proceed. ... Since claims for monetary damages against state officials acting in their official capacity are barred, Judge Johnston determined that Englert’s claims against Hopkins seeking monetary compensation are barred. ... While the Court agrees with Judge Johnston’s legal analysis of the claims against the Department of Corrections and Blair Hopkins, it is cognizant of the importance of liberally construing a document filed pro se and holding such pleadings to less stringent standards than those prepared by lawyers. ... The Court dismisses the claims against Defendants Hopkins and the Department of Corrections and will grant Englert’s request to amend.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so states and state officials sued in their official capacities are immune from damages claims.

Christian v. Thompson · filed 2019-10-03

Nor has Congress abrogated states’ sovereign immunity through enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Cano v. Cohen · filed 2019-10-04

Congress has not abrogated the States’ immunity for claims under § 1983.

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

Jordan v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance · filed 2019-10-04

Congress has not abrogated the States’ immunity for claims under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, which bars claims against New York state agencies.

Madison v. New York State Department of Corrections · filed 2019-10-04

Congress has not abrogated the States’ immunity for claims under § 1983. ... The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the defendants as frivolous under the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Hussein v. Department of Employment & Economic Development · filed 2019-10-07

But Hussein’s claims against DEED under §§ 1981 and 1983, and for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as are his official-capacity claims against Grove insofar as he seeks damages, and those claims must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1983 claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Sims v. Diaz · filed 2019-10-09

All § 1983 claims against the CDCR are dismissed without leave to amend because this defendant has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred when the agency has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Lemons v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 2019-10-09

The Magistrate Judge also stated the lawsuit failed to state a claim on its face because the sole named defendant is the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which is an agency of the State of Texas and is thus shielded from suit by Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... ORDERED the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 5) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Section 1983 claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections.

DOTSON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-10-10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against GDC are barred.

Section 1983 claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

POWELL v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-10-10

In Stevens v. Gay, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals unequivocally determined that Section 1983 claims cannot proceed against GDC. 864 F.2d 113, 115 (11th Cir. 1989) (finding in a Section 1983 lawsuit that “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars this action against the Georgia Department of Corrections”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against GDC are barred.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections.

GHIDEN v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-10-10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against GDC are barred.

Section 1983 claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

MOSS v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-10-10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against GDC are barred.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Section 1983 claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections.

FAISON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-10-10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against GDC are barred.

Section 1983 claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

TRAMMELL v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-10-10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against GDC are barred.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Section 1983 claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections.

ROBERSON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-10-10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against GDC are barred.

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

Wells v. New York State Courts · filed 2019-10-25

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from claims against its agencies and facilities.

Morgan v. Downstate Correctional Facility · filed 2019-10-28

The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against DOCCS and Fishkill as frivolous under the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Hardy v. New York State Department of Labor · filed 2019-11-01

Congress has not abrogated the States’ immunity for claims under § 1983.

A Section 1983 claim against a state official seeking prospective relief is not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

May v. Azar · filed 2019-11-04

A review of Plaintiffs’ Complaint shows the relief they seek is confined to prospective relief as well as costs and fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Doc. 1. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity is denied.

Section 1983 does not permit retrospective declaratory relief against state officials in their official capacities when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Aviles v. Rodriguez · filed 2019-11-04

To the extent that Aviles seeks a declaration that the defendants violated his constitutional rights in the past, the request is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Jackson v. Uptegrove · filed 2019-11-04

Missouri has not consented to suit, and Congress did not abrogate the state’s immunity in enacting § 1983.

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

Ward v. Griffin · filed 2019-11-04

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Johnson v. City of New York · filed 2019-11-05

Congress has not abrogated the States’immunity for claims under §1983.

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

Johnson v. Wolf · filed 2019-11-05

Barbara D. Underwood, Esq., and the New York State Office of the Attorney General have not waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against a state corrections department are barred when the department has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Dayringer v. Webster · filed 2013-08-09

Further, the claims against MDOC must be dismissed because MDOC is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

The Kansas Attorney General has the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity when sued in his official capacity under Section 1983.

Maley v. State of Kansas · filed 2013-11-26

In addition, the parties Maley has sued are likely to be immune from suit under Section 1983. Maley has sued the State of Kansas, as well as the Kansas Attorney General and the Governor of Kansas in their official capacities. The Kansas Attorney General is the “chief law officer of the state” and therefore is entitled to the same immunity under the Eleventh Amendment as the State itself.

A Section 1983 claim against a state cannot proceed in federal court when the state asserts Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Wright v. North Carolina · filed 2014-03-17

This Court lacks jurisdiction over the State here and therefore defendant State of North Carolina’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is granted.

Section 1983 permits a Monell claim against the Baltimore Police Department because the department lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity from that claim.

Grim v. Baltimore Police Department · filed 2019-11-08

Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment does not compel the dismissal of plaintiff’s Monell claims lodged against the BPD in Count I.

A § 1983 suit against state officials in their official capacities may seek prospective injunctive relief, but the Eleventh Amendment bars retroactive monetary relief.

Bader v. Wernert · filed 2016-04-14

First, this Court may not award retroactive monetary relief because such relief is outside the scope of Ex parte Young and FSSA’s Amended Answer raises the Eleventh Amendment as an affirmative defense.

Section 1983 does not itself override Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

OLIVER v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 668 · filed 2019-11-12

Plaintiff is suing the Commonwealth defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which does not by itself override Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against state employees sued in their official capacities are barred when the state entity has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Reiner v. Canale · filed 2018-03-15

"[T]he Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 suits seeking money damages against states and against state employees sued in their official capacities." ... For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that SVSU would be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity were it still a defendant in this action, and that that immunity extends to Defendant Canale as well.

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

Jackson v. Heer · filed 2018-08-16

Plaintiff's claims for damages against individual defendants acting in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so claims against a state agency are barred.

Brown v. Annucci · filed 2019-07-09

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, a New York State agency, are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed.

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

Alamiin v. Allbaugh · filed 2019-07-10

Judge Purcell also recommends that all official-capacity claims for monetary relief be dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... The Court adopts the R. & R. in all other respects, including the alternative recommendation that Claim Two be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

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

Wilson v. Department of Human Services of the State of Oklahoma · filed 2019-07-24

Finally, the Eleventh Amendment bars Petitioner from seeking money damages against OKDHS, an arm of the State.

Section 1983 claims against a state or state agency in federal court are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state consents or Congress abrogates that immunity.

Sroga v. Rendered Services Inc. · filed 2019-11-20

Here, Sroga brought suit against the State and a state agency and neither of the noted exceptions exist, so both defendants must be dismissed.

Section 1983 permits claims for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities when the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law.

Grindling v. State of Hawaii · filed 2019-11-22

In short, the FAC’s allegations are sufficient to invoke the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity as to Plaintiff’s claim for prospective injunctive relief against Defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state university are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when no exception applies.

Dunn v. Mississippi State University · filed 2019-11-22

Since no exception applies, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Dunn’s claims against MSU arising from 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against state agencies are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because Congress has not abrogated the states’ immunity.

Yorro v. Jordan · filed 2019-11-22

The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against DOCCS and DOP under the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment immunity and because those claims are frivolous.

Section 1983 claims against an Ohio public university are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the university is an arm of the state.

Herman v. Ohio University · filed 2019-11-22

As a public university in the State of Ohio, Ohio University qualifies as an arm of the state and is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Coke v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision Medical Services Department · filed 2019-12-02

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims for declaratory relief against state officials in their official capacities require an alleged ongoing violation of federal law.

Doe v. Haas · filed 2019-12-09

There is no assertion of an ongoing violation and therefore the claim for declaratory relief against Haas and Shane is properly dismissed.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state officials may seek prospective injunctive relief, but Eleventh Amendment immunity bars other relief.

Swallow v. Corizon, LLC · filed 2019-12-18

The Court will also dismiss plaintiff’s official-capacity claims against defendants Lombardi, Precythe, Griffith, and Payne to the extent that plaintiff seeks relief other than prospective injunctive relief.

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

Provost v. State of South Dakota · filed 2019-12-18

The Supreme Court has explained that Congress, in passing 42 U.S.C. § 1983, did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. ... Provost’s claims against the South Dakota are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).

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

Dunn v. Downstate Correctional Facility/Dept. of Corrections · filed 2019-12-19

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a monetary damages claim against a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Hardin v. T.D.C.J. · filed 2019-12-20

Because Texas has not waived its immunity, Hardin cannot recover monetary damages from TDCJ because, as a state agency, it is immune from suit.

Section 1983 claims against state employees in their official capacities are barred when they are effectively suits against a state protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Garrett v. Minchin · filed 2020-01-06

Plaintiff sues the MDMH and MSLPC defendants in their official capacities. Therefore, his claims are effectively against the MDMH and the MSLPC. ... The MDMH and MSLPC both share the State of Missouri’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against New York state courts are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because those courts are arms of the state.

Ajaero v. The Entire Appellate Division, Appellate Term · filed 2020-01-10

The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against these Defendants under the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment immunity and because these claims are frivolous.

A state prison cannot be sued under Section 1983 because state agencies are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

(PC) Beaton v. Valley State Prison · filed 2020-01-14

The Eleventh Amendment erects a general bar against federal lawsuits brought against the state, including state agencies. ... Thus, Plaintiff cannot bring a claim in this action against Valley State Prison.

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

Arthur Gibson, Jr. v. Vanjani · filed 2020-01-15

Because the record reflects that Gibson has received the requested Hepatitis C treatment and his only remaining claim against defendants is for damages, the district court properly concluded that Gibson’s claim against defendants in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state university that is an agency of the state is immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court when neither Congress has abrogated immunity nor the state has consented to suit.

Downs v. Kentucky State University · filed 2020-01-17

KSU is entitled to immunity under the ... Eleventh Amendment and Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against KSU must be granted.

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

Avent v. Unknown Charity Ass. Att. Generals · filed 2020-01-17

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Hardin v. Jones · filed 2020-01-21

The Court agrees that such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state agency enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Clemons v. Alabama Department of Human Resources · filed 2020-01-22

Of course, Clemons’s § 1981 claim (as enforced through § 1983) is against only Buckner in her personal capacity, for DHR, as a state entity, enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 claim.

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

Animashaun v. Fischer · filed 2020-01-23

It is well-settled that Congress did not abrogate states' immunity through Section 1983, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 343-45 (1979), and that New York State has not waived its immunity from suit on the claims asserted in plaintiff's amended complaint.

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

S.H. v. Tidball · filed 2020-01-24

It is well-settled that states, state agencies, and state officials sued in their official capacities are protected from claims for money damages by the Eleventh Amendment, and Congress has not abrogated the state’s immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims for monetary damages against these jail officials are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

NESBITT v. LONG · filed 2020-01-28

The Magistrate Judge concluded, and the Court agrees, that Weaver, Lee, Hobby, Henderson and Bell are entitled to immunity from Nesbitt’s § 1983 official-capacity claims for monetary damages.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, so state domestic relations units cannot be sued under it in federal court.

KASTLER OF THE FAMILY JOSEPH v. WASHINGTON COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS UNIT · filed 2020-01-28

And the Supreme Court has held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. ... As a result, the claims against the Domestic Relations Units of Washington and Allegheny Counties are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Sims v. Diaz · filed 2020-02-10

All § 1983 claims for damages against the individual defendants sued in their official capacities are dismissed because Eleventh Amendment immunity shields defendants from damages claims to the extent they are sued in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, so an arm of the state retains that immunity absent a waiver.

Amiri v. Gupta · filed 2020-02-12

The University is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on Plaintiffs § 1983 procedural due process claim.

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

(PC) Gould v. Smith · filed 2020-02-12

As an initial matter, no claim for monetary damages may proceed against defendant CDCR insofar as it is a state agency and, therefore, immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

White v. Mansfield Correctional Institution · filed 2020-02-18

When enacting § 1983, Congress did not abrogate the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against state employees in their official capacities are subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ybanez v. Stipe · filed 2020-02-19

Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff names Defendants in their official capacities, they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

E. Thomas Scarborough, III v. Northampton County Court of Co · filed 2020-02-20

Moreover, although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of § 1983, the federal law under which Scarborough proceeds.

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

Aaron v. O'Connor · filed 2020-02-20

Second, Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Villarreal v. State of New Jersey · filed 2020-02-21

While it is not entirely clear from the complaint, it appears that the Villarreals sought to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see supra note 1, and § 1983 does not abrogate New Jersey’s immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for state agencies that are arms of the state.

Gunn v. Betivegna · filed 2020-02-21

DOCCS is an arm of the State of New York and therefore enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under § 1983.

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

Marshall v. Lilley · filed 2020-02-21

And the Eleventh Amendment bars any official-capacity claim for damages under § 1983 against these defendants, who are all DOCCS employees and thus state agents.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits against a state, its agencies, or state officials sued in their official capacities.

Morabito v. State of New York · filed 2020-02-25

It is well settled that § 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against a state corrections secretary seeking injunctive relief rather than damages.

Daniels v. Inch · filed 2020-02-25

Plaintiff’s complaint does not ask for compensatory or punitive damages but rather seeks injunctive relief. Eleventh Amendment immunity, therefore, is not a bar to this action.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so an official-capacity claim for damages against a state employee is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Heldmann v. Southwestern Oklahoma State University College of Pharmacy · filed 2020-02-26

Defendant Kessler, in her official capacity as an employee of SWOSU, is therefore protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity to the extent Plaintiff seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state or state agency is immune from a Section 1983 suit unless the state waives that immunity.

Mazur v. Southwestern Veterans Center · filed 2020-03-05

To the extent that Mazur’s claim could be construed as a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mazur’s claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, which protects a state or a state agency from suit unless Congress has specifically abrogated the state’s immunity or the state has waived its immunity.

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

Sanchez v. Miller · filed 2020-03-06

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency and its attorney general may be barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Moore v. Marshall · filed 2020-03-09

(4) The Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED as to the following claims which are DISMISSED with prejudice: a. Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (“ALEA”) as barred by the Eleventh Amendment; b. Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 12101 claims against Defendant Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state officials may be barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Severance v. Cheng · filed 2020-03-10

The district court properly dismissed Severance’s official-capacity claims as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

McElderry v. Saunders · filed 2020-03-13

Being sued in their official capacities for monetary damages, the TDCJ Defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment because such an action is the same as a suit against the sovereign.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective injunctive relief against a warden in his official capacity, although Eleventh Amendment immunity bars official-capacity damages and injunctive claims against a state corrections department.

Kough v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-03-18

Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment based on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendant SCDC for injunctive relief and against Defendant Cohen for monetary damages in his official capacity. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied based on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for prospective injunctive relief against Defendant Cohen in his official capacity.