42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 permits personal-capacity claims against state officials for acts taken in their official roles without an Eleventh Amendment bar.

Doe v. El Dorado Union High School District · filed 2020-03-19

It is well-established that “state officers [are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment] from personal liability under section 1983 solely by virtue of the “official” nature of their acts.” Hafer, 502 U.S. at 31. ... The Court finds that Plaintiffs have made clear the “essential nature” of their Third and Fourth Claims as personal capacity claims.

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

Walker v. Miller · filed 2020-03-19

It is well- established that lawsuits against employees in their official capacities are lawsuits against the state, and that (in the absence of a waiver not present here) states are immune from monetary claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Moore v. The State of New York · filed 2020-03-23

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

Section 1983 claims against New York’s corrections department and state prison medical departments are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because those entities are arms of the state.

Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department · filed 2020-03-25

DOCCS and a New York State prison’s medical department, such as the Downstate Medical Department, are arms of the State of New York, and therefore enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under § 1983.

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

Knighton v. University of Texas at Arlington · filed 2020-03-27

Because the Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against state officials sued for damages in their official capacities, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider, and Counts VII, IX, and X are DISMISSED with prejudice.

Section 1983 claims against California school districts are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Bonuelos v. Hanford Elementary School District · filed 2020-03-30

Based on the above authorities, Defendant Hanford Elementary School District is clearly entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an immune officer in his official capacity.

Hawkins v. McFadden · filed 2019-09-30

There was also no clear error regarding the Magistrate Judge’s determination that McFadden, in his official capacity, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Grillot v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2019-12-18

The University, as an arm of the State of Oklahoma, asks the court to dismiss it from this claim based on eleventh amendment immunity. ... The motion to dismiss is GRANTED on that basis.

Section 1983 damages claims against state agencies protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity must be dismissed.

Grizzle v. Virginia Department Of Social Services · filed 2020-04-01

Even if I were to accept the plaintiff’s claim as sufficiently supported by his conclusory allegations, the defendants are immune from suit for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.

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

Dickens v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-02

Congress has not expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity for § 1983 suits, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979), and the state of Michigan has not consented to civil rights suits in federal court, Harrison v. Michigan, 722 F.3d 768, 771 (6th Cir. 2013).

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state prison’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, but individual-capacity claims against prison staff may proceed.

Canada v. Gina M. · filed 2020-04-03

The plaintiff’s claim against the Thumb Correctional Facility is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but his claims against defendants Gina M. and R. Heering brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are viable.

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

Atkinson v. In the matter of the State of New York · filed 2020-04-03

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 official-capacity claims against a sheriff are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the sheriff acts as an arm of the state.

MONCUS v. LASALLE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A LASALLE CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-04-06

The Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff’s official-capacity § 1983 and state law claims against Defendant.

Section 1983 claims for damages against a state official in his official capacity and for injunctive relief against a state agency are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Priester v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-06

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant Cohen for monetary damages in his official capacity and Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant SCDC for injunctive relief as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Littlejohn v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-06

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant Cohen for monetary damages in his official capacity and Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant SCDC for injunctive relief as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against a state agency and official-capacity damages against a state official, but allows a claim for prospective injunctive relief against the official.

Wilson v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-06

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.

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

Taylor v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-06

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 as to Plaintiffs § 1983 claim for prospective injunctive relief against Defendant Cohen in his official capacity.

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

Minor v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-04-07

Further, “[t]here has been no congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity as to claims under §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, or 1986.” ... MDPS is an arm of the State of Mississippi and, as such, is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Robinson v. New York State Corrections · filed 2020-04-08

It is well-settled that Congress did not abrogate states' immunity through 42 U.S.C. § 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 complaint.

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

Thomas v. City of New York · filed 2020-04-10

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.

Washington v. Oklahoma State DHS · filed 2020-04-21

It is well-established that Congress did not ... abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when enacting § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against state officers sued in their official capacities may be barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Abrams v. Newsom · filed 2020-04-21

The district court properly dismissed Abrams’s action as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Bolden v. South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs · filed 2020-04-21

The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that DDSN, a state agency, is an “arm of the state” immune from suit under § 1983 pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 claims for compensatory damages against state officials in their official capacities.

MASSEY v. ESTOCK · filed 2020-04-22

To that end, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s official capacity claims for compensatory damages are barred by ... the Eleventh Amendment and must therefore be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A § 1983 suit seeking prospective relief may proceed against a state officer under Ex Parte Young when the officer has a particular duty and demonstrated willingness to enforce the challenged law.

First Baptist Church v. Kelly · filed 2020-04-27

Thus, the governor has a sufficient connection with enforcement of the relevant executive order to satisfy that element under Kitchen and Ex Parte Young. ... Accordingly, the governor is not entitled to dismissal on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.

Section 1983 claims against a state official in her official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the plaintiff cannot show an ongoing federal violation and an imminent injury to support prospective relief.

Johnston v. Prairie View, Inc. · filed 2020-04-27

Three of these claims are against Defendant Laura Howard in her official capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Aging and Disability Services: (1) Count I for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d); (2) Count II for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988; and (3) Count III for conspiring to violate Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, also brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Plaintiff has failed to allege an ongoing violation of federal law or an imminent injury in connection with his prospective claims. He therefore lacks standing and cannot invoke the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Knode v. Erickson · filed 2020-04-27

The state of South Dakota has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for damages actions in federal court and Congress has not abrogated South Dakota’s Eleventh Amendment immunity under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its universities are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Sanders v. PA State System of Higher Ed · filed 2020-04-29

We therefore affirmed the dismissal of the appellant’s § 1983 complaint against PASSHE and one of its universities. ... We therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal of PASSHE and East Stroudsburg University because they are protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

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

Ashraf v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction · filed 2020-04-30

The magistrate judge correctly found that plaintiff’s claims against ODRC’s Medical Department and NCI’s Medical Department, both agencies of the State of Ohio, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

States and state agencies have Eleventh Amendment immunity from Section 1983 damages suits, but a claim for prospective injunctive relief may proceed.

Tay v. Baldwin · filed 2020-05-01

Defendants are correct that states and state agencies enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity from Section 1983 suits for money damages filed in federal court absent some exceptions not relevant here. ... In the First Amended Complaint, however, Plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief, for which the State of Illinois is not immune.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, so arms of a state are immune from suit under it in federal court.

Corley v. Nathan · filed 2020-05-04

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 from suit in federal court.

Davis v. The Department of Corrections · filed 2020-05-04

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 Eleventh Amendment immunity, which bars money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Kelly v. Haslam · filed 2020-05-04

“The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 suits seeking money damages against states and against state employees sued in their official capacities.” Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 594 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989)). Accordingly, Kelly is not entitled to monetary damages, whether punitive, compensatory, or actual damages from Defendants Slatery and Rausch.

Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar § 1983 claims against municipal employees on the basis that they are state employees.

Edwards v. Troy Police Department · filed 2020-05-05

Additionally, the Court notes that Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply to Plaintiff's claims, as Defendants are municipal employees rather than employees of the state.

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

McCloud v. Bird-Hunt · filed 2020-05-07

Thus, a state official sued for damages in his or her official capacity is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Hoback v. Cox · filed 2020-05-11

As Plaintiff in this case seeks monetary damages, her claims against Defendant Cox and the other Defendants in their official capacities are barred in their entirety by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Hill v. LaClair · filed 2020-05-11

Accordingly, plaintiff's Section 1983 claims for monetary relief against Franklin Correctional Facility and the named defendants in their official capacities are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 claim for prospective relief may proceed against state officials connected to enforcing the challenged law despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Grabarczyk v. Stein · filed 2020-05-12

The Court thus concludes that the defendants are proper Ex parte Young defendants and that the Eleventh Amendment does not make them immune from this suit.

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

Ward v. State of Idaho · filed 2020-05-13

The district court properly dismissed Ward’s claims against the State of Idaho, the Idaho Department of Corrections, and the Idaho State Correctional Center as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Kenneth W. Mills v. State of California · filed 2020-05-14

Here, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to sue the State of California and/or CDCR pursuant to Section 1983, such claims are barred because the State of California and CDCR are protected by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities.

Campbell v. Maldanado · filed 2020-05-19

To the extent Campbell seeks damages against the defendants in their official capacities, those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Gunn v. Bentivegna · filed 2020-05-19

DOCCS, as an arm of the State of New York, enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under § 1983.

Kansas sheriffs performing law enforcement duties act for their counties and lack Eleventh Amendment immunity from official-capacity § 1983 damages claims.

Couser v. Gay · filed 2020-05-22

We hold that Sheriff Gay, acting in his law enforcement capacity, is a county actor under Kansas law and thus not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A groundwater conservation district and its directors cannot claim Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit when the district is not an arm of the state.

Stratta v. Harris · filed 2020-05-29

On balance, five of the six Clark factors weigh against finding BVGCD is an arm of the state of Texas for which Eleventh Amendment immunity is appropriate. Most important, funds from the Texas treasury will not be used to satisfy a judgment against the entity. The Directors are likewise not entitled to assert such immunity.

A state department that retains Eleventh Amendment immunity cannot be sued for damages under § 1983.

Carl Taylor, Jr. v. State of Florida Highway Safety · filed 2020-06-01

First, to the extent Taylor sought to bring a § 1983 claim for damages against the State of Florida Department of Highway Safety, such a claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

REAVIS v. HICKS · filed 2020-06-05

Therefore, the New Jersey Department of Corrections is immune from Plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 and the NJCRA.

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

Keller v. Ala Wai State Boat Harbor · filed 2020-06-08

Because § 1983 does not abrogate Defendant’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, Plaintiff is barred from bringing a claim under § 1983 against Defendant.

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

Ripa v. Stony Brook Univ. · filed 2020-06-09

The district court properly dismissed Ripa’s Section 1983 claims under the Eleventh Amendment, which precludes suits against states unless the state expressly waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that immunity, neither of which occurred here. ... State universities such as SBU are arms of the state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment and are therefore entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Brown v. New York City Department of Corrections · filed 2020-06-09

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 in federal court.

Kelly v. New York City Department of Corrections · filed 2020-06-10

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 suit in federal court.

Gomez v. New York City Department Of Corrections · filed 2020-06-10

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 in federal court.

Medina v. New York City Department of Corrections · filed 2020-06-10

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 in federal court.

Fennell v. New York City Department of Corrections · filed 2020-06-10

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 in federal court.

Azor-El v. New York City Department of Corrections · filed 2020-06-10

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 in federal court.

Carter v. New York City Department of Corrections · filed 2020-06-10

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, and a state commission is immune from suit under it.

Ducote v. Judiciary Commission of Louisiana · filed 2020-06-12

Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to satisfy the first requirement on its face because it does not name any individual state officials as defendants in their official capacities. Accordingly, the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against a state agency and its employees in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the agency is an arm of the state.

O'Bryant v. Pier · filed 2020-06-16

The Child Protection Defendants argue that the Division and its employees in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages because the Division is an arm of the State of New Jersey. We agree.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against Georgia and its state agencies regardless of the relief sought.

BEAUBRUN v. JACKSON DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION PRISON · filed 2020-06-16

As Plaintiff was already told, the Eleventh Amendment bars a §1983 action against the State of Georgia and its agencies, such as the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, regardless of whether a plaintiff seeks monetary damages or prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, so claims against an arm of a state are barred in federal court.

Williams v. Essex · filed 2020-06-18

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 suits against state agencies are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

(PC) Dearwester v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2020-06-19

The named defendants are all immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment because they are agencies of the State of California.

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

Walker v. Nicholas · filed 2020-06-23

Any claims for money damages against Defendants, who are state employees, in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and therefore must be dismissed.

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

Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State · filed 2020-06-24

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 allow damages claims against a state agency or its employees in their official capacities when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Whitall v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2020-06-29

It is well established that plaintiff cannot bring a claim for damages under § 1983 against CDCR (or CDCR employee in his/her official capacity) because, as a state agency, CDCR is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages.

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

Mahuka v. Aila · filed 2020-06-29

For these reasons, the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude Plaintiffs from bringing these claims for prospective relief against the individuals named as defendants in their official capacity.

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

Houser v. Evans · filed 2020-07-01

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 permit a federal suit against a state corrections department protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Evans 229895 v. Whitmer · filed 2020-07-07

Plaintiffs may not maintain a § 1983 action against the MDOC.

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

Hunter v. Unknown Named South Dakota Criminal · filed 2020-07-07

Congress did not lift the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against Florida state courts are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because neither Florida nor Congress has waived that immunity.

Jackman v. 20th Judicial Circuit Court Administration · filed 2020-07-10

The Court finds that the §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 claims asserted against the 20th Judicial Circuit are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from suits against state agencies in federal court.

Paul v. CMC · filed 2020-07-13

Finally, Congress has not repealed state sovereign immunity against suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Eleventh Amendment immunity can require dismissal with prejudice of official-capacity claims under § 1983.

Sango 252200 v. Povastack · filed 2020-07-14

This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Failure to Exhaust and Motion to Dismiss Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity (ECF No. 17). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on June 18, 2020, recommending that this Court grant the motion, and that Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims be dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiff’s individual-capacity claims against Defendants be dismissed without prejudice. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.

Section 1983 claims against New York State are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Wilson v. State of New York · filed 2020-07-16

As noted in the May 2020 Order, plaintiff cannot proceed with any Section 1983 claims against the State of New York because such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit a civil rights claim against Child Protective Services because it is a state entity immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Leal v. Muzuka · filed 2020-07-21

Plaintiff may not pursue a civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CPS. CPS is not a proper defendant because it is a state entity immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Barnar v. New York City Department of Corrections · filed 2020-07-22

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 state entities and a state judge in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity absent consent or valid congressional abrogation.

Bowen v. Keys · filed 2020-07-23

In sum, the Eleventh Amendment bars federal suit under §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 against the Simpson County Chancery Court, the county DHS/CPS, and Judge Shoemake in his official capacity.

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

Balderrama v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2020-07-24

Here, to the extent Balderrama seeks to sue CDCR pursuant to Section 1983 for deliberate indifference and cruel and unusual punishment, such claims are barred because CDCR is protected by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Scott v. State of Louisiana · filed 2020-07-30

Claims under federal statutes do not override the Eleventh Amendment bar unless there is a clear showing of congressional intent to abrogate the bar, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979), and § 1983 does not override the Eleventh Amendment bar.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state agency and a state official in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when no exception applies.

Bahgat v. Township of East Brunswick · filed 2020-08-03

We therefore agree with the District Court that the Eleventh Amendment precludes Bahgat’s claims against the MVC and Martinez in his official capacity.

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

Seifelnasr v. Medicad · filed 2020-08-04

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.

Richardson v. Arshad · filed 2020-08-04

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

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

Irby v. Hinkle · filed 2020-08-05

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

State agencies are immune from Section 1983 civil rights claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

(PC) Del Rosario v. Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles · filed 2020-08-06

Because CDCR is a state agency, it is immune from civil rights claims raised pursuant to Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ziankovich v. Members of the Colorado Supreme Court · filed 2020-08-06

Furthermore, congressional enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A West Virginia county prosecuting attorney is not an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Gardner v. Kanawha County, West Virginia · filed 2020-08-07

Inasmuch as all four factors weigh against finding the Prosecuting Attorney as an arm of the state, the Prosecuting Attorney is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Williams v. Farley · filed 2020-08-10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Defendants in their official capacity for monetary damages are subject to dismissal.

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

Brickhouse v. DuBois · filed 2020-08-11

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 parole board are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not waived it.

MCCULLOUGH v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE · filed 2020-08-12

The Board is a part of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and therefore is immune from suit by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials, but the Eleventh Amendment bars relief requiring retroactive payment of state funds.

Baker v. Brown · filed 2020-08-13

Although the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the Court from issuing an injunction requiring Defendants to certify Plaintiffs eligible for Medicaid going forward, it does prevent the Court from backdating its certification order.

Section 1983 does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Hymas v. Barclay · filed 2020-08-24

However, section 1983 does not contain a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Castillo v. Hart · filed 2020-08-28

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. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed.

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

Doe v. Colorado Community College System · filed 2020-09-04

If the Institutional Defendants are arms of the State of Colorado, then there is no question that the Eleventh Amendment shields them from liability under §§ 1981 and 1983. ... Plaintiffs have failed to show that their claims against the Institutional Defendants are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow a civil rights action against a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Lopiccolo v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-09-04

Plaintiff may not maintain a § 1983 action against the MDOC. The Eleventh Amendment bars civil rights actions against a state and its agencies and departments unless the state has waived its immunity and consented to suit or Congress has abrogated that immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state waives immunity or Congress abrogates it.

Bailey v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-09-04

Plaintiffs may not maintain a § 1983 action against MDOC, unless the state waives immunity or Congress expressly abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute.

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

smith v. Michigan Department of CorrectionsCASE CLOSED - ALL ENTRIES MUST BE MADE IN 19-10707. · filed 2020-09-04

Plaintiffs may not maintain a § 1983 action against MDOC, unless the state waives immunity or Congress expressly abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute.

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

Pearson v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-09-04

Plaintiffs cannot maintain a § 1983 action against WSU.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state college that is an arm of the state is immune from a § 1983 claim.

Jackson v. Marion Military Institute (MMI) · filed 2020-09-08

“Congress has not abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity in [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 cases[,]” id. at 731, and the Supreme Court has held that, “in the ADEA, Congress did not validly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity to suits by private individuals” such as Jacksonl. Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 91 (2000).

Section 1983 official-capacity damages claims against Virginia sheriffs and their deputies are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Jamison v. Kincaid · filed 2020-09-09

Because the Eleventh Amendment bars Jamison’s official capacity claims against the individual Sheriff Defendants, the Court WILL DISMISS that aspect of Jamison’s claims against the Sheriff Defendants in their official capacity.

A state and its agencies have Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 claims.

Diggs v. Clenindimd · filed 2020-09-10

A claim is not stated against the State of California, NSH, or DSH because these entities have Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Official-capacity claims under § 1983 against state officers are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Berry v. Crow · filed 2020-09-14

Plaintiff's official-capacity action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only is DISMISSED without prejudice as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Weigelt v. County of Monterey · filed 2020-09-15

The district court properly dismissed Weigelt’s claims against defendant Superior Court of California, County of Monterey (sued as “Monterey County Family Courts”) because these claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against UTMB-CMC and state officials sued in their official capacities.

Salazar v. U.T.M.B. C.M.C. · filed 2020-09-28

For example, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that UTMB-CMC is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and that likewise all official capacity claims should be dismissed because they are immune from suit for the same reason. The Court has conducted a thorough, de novo review of all the relevant portions of the record and finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is correct.

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

Penque v. Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-10-08

Penque’s claims against the State of Hawaii and its Department of Public Safety are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... To the extent he seeks monetary damages from Warden Taylor, the Eleventh Amendment bars these claims.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim for prospective relief against a state official under Ex parte Young when the alleged constitutional violation is ongoing.

WOOLSLAYER v. DRISCOLL · filed 2020-10-08

Accepting the allegations of the Complaint as true, the harm caused by Woolslayer’s unconstitutional termination is ongoing and the equitable relief he seeks from Driscoll in his official capacity is prospective. Therefore, Woolslayer’s official capacity claim against Driscoll is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under the doctrine of Ex parte Young.

Section 1983 damages claims cannot proceed against a state court domestic relations section that shares the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

PARKER v. LEHIGH COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION · filed 2020-10-09

The claims for money damages Parker seeks to assert against LCDRS may not proceed. ... The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its agencies in federal court in which monetary damages are sought.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, which extends to state agencies.

Gunn v. "Bill" · filed 2020-10-13

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.

Jones v. State of South Carolina and its agents · filed 2020-10-14

First, the magistrate judge concluded that Defendant South Carolina is entitled to dismissal on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity which has not been abrogated for actions under § 1983. ... The court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report, (ECF No. 11), and incorporates it herein.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for official-capacity suits against state judges.

Russell v. Martin · filed 2020-10-19

Section 1983 does not function to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Bailey v. Warden · filed 2020-10-20

Thus, insofar as Bailey may be seeking monetary damages from Defendants in their official capacities, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit.

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

Nguyen v. State of Hawaii, Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-10-21

Because the Department of Public Safety is an agency of the State of Hawaii, Nguyen’s entire action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

McAvoy v. Franco · filed 2020-10-28

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. ... Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against DOCCS are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed.

A state is immune from being substituted as a defendant in a § 1983 action under the Eleventh Amendment.

(PC) Underwood v. Tan · filed 2020-10-30

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Second, the defendant Plaintiff seeks to substitute in place of the deceased defendant is immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state corrections department are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, but official-capacity claims against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are not.

SKELTON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-10-30

Therefore, the Court will dismiss the § 1983 claims against NJDOC based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. Hicks and Powell, in their official capacities, do not have Eleventh Amendment immunity for Plaintiff’s claims for prospective injunctive relief.

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

Miller v. Cook · filed 2020-11-02

Absent allegations that the defendants in their official capacities have consented to be sued or that Congress has abrogated the State of Connecticut’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in suits brought under Section 1983, the requests seeking monetary damages for violations of Miller’s federal constitutional rights by the defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 Eighth Amendment claim against state officials sued only in their official capacities.

Sansoucie v. Howell · filed 2020-11-02

Given that Sansoucie named the defendants in their official capacities only, the Eleventh Amendment would also bar his Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983.

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

Carmichael v. Allbaugh · filed 2020-11-04

Defendant Allbaugh, as an employee of ODOC and in his official capacity, is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages sought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities cannot proceed under Ex parte Young unless the officials can provide the requested prospective relief.

Sutton v. Stony Brook University · filed 2020-11-05

Thus, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against Galante in her official capacity does not fall under the Ex parte Young exception and is therefore barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against a state prison officer in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Cooper v. Lawrence · filed 2020-11-06

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

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

Winters v. The State of New York · filed 2020-11-09

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 in federal court.

Hall v. Agostino · filed 2020-11-17

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.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars an official capacity Section 1983 claim against a chief judge acting as an arm of the state when administering a juvenile detention facility.

T.S v. Twentieth Century Fox Television, Inc. · filed 2020-11-23

The court concludes that the Chief Judge acts an arm of the State of Illinois when he operates and administers the JTDC. Accordingly, the court grants the Chief Judge's motion for summary judgment that the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs' claims against him and denies Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment seeking the opposite result.

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

Carroll v. California Department of Corrections · filed 2020-11-24

The Magistrate Judge properly dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit seeking money damages from Wright and Miller in their official capacities pursuant to their Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Gentry v. State of Indiana · filed 2020-12-07

Congress did not abrogate the States’ immunity through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Jackson v. Cuomo · filed 2020-12-07

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 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

Bowyer v. Ducey · filed 2020-12-09

As for Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity from suit in the enacting language of Section 1983, and therefore, the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims.

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

Ulep v. State of Hawaii, Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-12-11

Any claims against the State of Hawaii and its agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from damages claims.

WATTERSON v. INDIANA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-12-15

As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "Congress did not abrogate the states' sovereign immunity from suit under section 1983, as it could have done."

Section 1983 does not abrogate Pennsylvania’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so claims against the Commonwealth are barred.

Lundy v. Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department · filed 2020-12-17

Thus, any 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Thomas v. N.Y. Department of Corrections Community Supervision · filed 2020-12-21

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

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

Engel v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-12-28

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

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, which bars damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Aldridge v. Lamont · filed 2020-12-30

Accordingly, any claims for which Aldridge seeks money damages against Governor Lamont to redress her alleged constitutional violations pursuant to Section 1983, or a declaration that any of the challenged Executive Orders violated federal law in the past, are dismissed.

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

Valles v. United States of America · filed 2021-01-06

Congress has not abrogated California’s and Utah’s immunity for claims under § 1983.

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

Seina v. Oahu Community Correctional Center · filed 2021-01-07

Any claims against these Defendants are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Webb v. May · filed 2021-01-08

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 state sovereign immunity, so claims against state employees in their official capacities are barred in federal court unless the state consents.

Haywood v. Grabowski · filed 2021-01-08

... and Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity when it passed § 1983. ... Plaintiff’s claims against the defendants in their official capacities will be dismissed.

Section 1983 suits against state entities or state employees in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity absent a waiver.

Engel v. ERDCC · filed 2021-01-13

A suit against the Missouri Department of Corrections and ERDCC is a claim against the State of Missouri. In the absence of a waiver, the Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 suit against a state entity or an individual employed by the state in his official capacity.

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

Richardson v. Davis · filed 2021-01-14

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

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

Ulep v. State of Hawaii, Department of Public Safety · filed 2021-01-14

Any claims against these Defendants are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... Ulep’s claims against the OCCC, “Public Safety of Hawaii,” and the State of Hawaii are DISMISSED with prejudice.

Section 1983 damages claims against state prison officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity; claims against them in their individual capacities may proceed.

Black v. Monahan · filed 2021-01-19

Here, while the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Black’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are barred under the Eleventh Amendment, Black’s claims against them in their individual capacities remain viable.

Section 1983 damages claims against South Carolina deputy sheriffs in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Brown v. Mt Pleasant Police Department · filed 2021-01-19

The magistrate judge agreed, concluding that because Defendants were employed by the Charleston County Sheriff, they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity “to the extent the plaintiff has alleged claims for monetary relief against them in their official capacities.” (ECF No. 57 at 3–4). ... Therefore, the court ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. 57) and incorporates its findings of fact and conclusions of law herein. The court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are hereby DISMISSED.

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

Jones v. State of South Carolina and its agents · filed 2021-01-21

First, the magistrate judge concluded that Defendant South Carolina is entitled to dismissal on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity which has not been abrogated for actions under § 1983. ... The court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report, (ECF No. 11), and incorporates it herein.

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

Favors v. Mike · filed 2021-01-22

Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 cases.

Section 1983 does not override state sovereign immunity; SUNY employees sued in their official capacities are immune from § 1983 claims unless an exception applies.

Doherty v. Bice · filed 2020-09-16

Therefore, under the Eleventh Amendment, SUNY employees sued in their official capacities are immune from suit for § 1983 claims.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state university and its governing board.

DAVIS v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO · filed 2020-09-29

Plaintiff concedes that the Eleventh Amendment bars her § 1983 claims and her North Carolina Constitutional claim. The court will therefore grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth claims under Rule 12(b)(1).

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

Scaperotta v. Kauai Community Correctional Center · filed 2021-01-28

Scaperotta’s damages claims against the KCCC, DPS, and Warden Wagatsuma in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Sherman v. Cook · filed 2021-01-29

It is well settled that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages against state officials acting in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, while claims for declaratory and injunctive relief may proceed against a state official in his official capacity.

Wright v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 2021-01-31

Although plaintiff is barred from suing TDCJ because it is a state agency, he may pursue his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against defendant Collier in his official capacity.

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

Hobbs v. Kansas Department for Children and Families · filed 2021-02-01

Additionally, when it enacted Sections 1983 and 1985, Congress did not intend to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Scaperotta v. Kauai Community Correctional Center · filed 2021-02-02

Scaperotta’s claims for money damages against the KCCC, and ACO Colobong and Warden Wagatsuma in their official capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice.

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

Scaperotta v. Kauai Community Correctional Center · filed 2021-02-05

Scaperotta’s claims for money damages against the KCCC, and Viohle and Dr. Charles in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and therefore DISMISSED with prejudice.

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

Lyde v. Green Haven Prison · filed 2021-02-05

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, so claims against an arm of the state are barred absent waiver.

Genao v. City of New York · filed 2021-02-08

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.