42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Dickerson v. Board of Trustees of Metropolitan State University of Denver · filed 2021-02-10

Consequently, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Dickerson’s § 1983 claim and will dismiss it without prejudice.

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

Huang v. Huang · filed 2021-02-11

Henrich and Potter, both employees of UTHSCSA and state officials, did not join the removal of this case to federal court and did not otherwise waive sovereign immunity. Accordingly, Henrich and Potter are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in their official capacities.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against a state official in an official capacity despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Aultman v. Shoop · filed 2021-02-11

With respect to Plaintiff’s claim against Warden Shoop under § 1983, however, the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude a claim against a state official acting in his or her official capacity where, as here, a plaintiff seeks only prospective injunctive or declaratory relief.

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

Galbraith v. ODOC · filed 2021-02-16

On review, Judge Mitchell recommended granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Department of Corrections under the Eleventh Amendment and, on screening, recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities likewise be dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment. ... Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 28], GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, in relevant part, [Doc. No. 24], and DISMISSES the official and individual capacity claims against Defendants without prejudice.

State officials sued under § 1983 for prospective relief retain Eleventh Amendment immunity unless they have a connection to enforcing the challenged law and a realistic prospect of doing so.

Block v. Canepa · filed 2021-02-17

The Ex Parte Young doctrine allows Plaintiffs’ suit to proceed against these Defendants if they (1) have “some connection with the enforcement of the act,” Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 157; and (2) have enforced or threatened to enforce the allegedly unconstitutional law.

Section 1983 damages claims against Pennsylvania probation and parole departments are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

WENHOLD v. LEHIGH COUNTY ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE · filed 2021-02-22

As Pennsylvania has not waived its sovereign immunity, and because Congress has not explicitly abrogated immunity through authorizing legislation, the Eleventh Amendment operates as a bar to claims for damages under § 1983 against Lehigh County Adult Probation and Parole Services.

A state prison operated by a state corrections department is immune from a § 1983 suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Lyde v. Green Haven Prison · filed 2021-02-24

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to remedy the deficiencies that the Court found in his original pleading. He again names Green Haven Prison as the sole defendant. But the Court has ... already dismissed the claims against Green Haven in the February 5, 2021 order because it is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 permits prospective equitable relief against a state official responsible for enforcing an allegedly unconstitutional law despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

CardX, LLC v. Schmidt · filed 2021-02-25

The court notes Defendant does not assert Eleventh Amendment immunity, and such immunity is inapplicable given that Defendant is responsible for enforcement of K.S.A. 16a-2-403 and has enforced it in the past, and Plaintiff seeks only prospective equitable relief to prevent enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional act.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state court judge in her official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state waives that immunity.

BEY v. STREETS · filed 2021-02-25

As there is no indication Pennsylvania has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, Bey’s claims against Judge Street in her official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state because the Eleventh Amendment bars it.

Spann v. Indiana State of · filed 2021-02-26

The Eleventh Amendment bars a claim for damages against the state.

Section 1983 declaratory relief against state officers is barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the plaintiff cannot allege an ongoing violation of federal law.

Ashbritt, Inc. v. Ghilarducci · filed 2021-03-01

Because AshBritt concedes that it has not and cannot allege an ongoing violation of federal law for purposes of its declaratory relief claim, that claim is dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Cousins v. McCormick · filed 2021-03-01

Having address the merits of Plaintiff's claims, the Court will not address the other grounds raised by Defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment, other than to note that the claims raised against Defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Morgan v. Thorton · filed 2021-03-02

Because Plaintiff seeks solely monetary relief, Defendants’ motion is due to be granted to the extent they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

State agencies protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity cannot be sued for damages under Section 1983.

Allen v. Maui County Correction Center · filed 2021-03-05

Allen’s claims for money damages against the KCCC and the DPS are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and therefore DISMISSED with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from retrospective official-capacity claims.

Brown v. Annucci · filed 2021-03-08

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.

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

Grizzle v. Stipes · filed 2021-03-10

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on Plaintiff’s claims against them in their official capacities for monetary relief.

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

Scholtes v. Michigan Department of Justice · filed 2021-03-11

The Court will dismiss the Michigan Department of Justice from this action because it is immune from suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against state agencies that are equivalent to suits against the State are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Patton v. Rushefsky · filed 2021-03-15

Regarding Plaintiff’s claims against the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) and the Arkansas Community of Correction (ACC), Judge Bryant recommends dismissal of these claims because the named defendants are agencies of the State of Arkansas and the claims are the equivalent of a suit against the State. Claims against the State are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... Upon review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in toto.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Section 1983 damages claims against California school districts.

Thompson v. Hayward Unified School District · filed 2021-03-15

That analysis applies with full force here, shields the HUSD with Eleventh Amendment immunity, and bars Thompson’s claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Scaperotta v. Kanehailua · filed 2021-03-15

To the extent Scaperotta seeks damages from Kanehailua in his official capacity, those claims are also barred by the Eleventh Amendment and DISMISSED with prejudice.

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

Delgado v. Annucci · filed 2021-03-15

Plaintiff's claims for money damages pursuant to Section 1983 against defendants in their official capacities (see Compl. at 4-5) are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

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

Singleton v. City of New York Comptroller Office · filed 2021-03-15

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.

Teague v. State of South Dakota · filed 2021-03-15

42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Johnson v. UC · filed 2000-06-01

Regarding Plaintiff’s claims brought against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983, the University, as an arm of the State, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment because it is well-settled that a plaintiff is precluded from directly suing a State in federal court on these claims.

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

Franklin v. A.H. Martinez · filed 2021-03-16

As to state officials sued in their official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes state officials sued in their official capacity from claims for retrospective relief (including monetary damage claims) but does not immunize them from claims for prospective relief (such as forward-looking injunctive relief). ... Accordingly, all claims against Defendants in their official capacity for monetary damages are subject to dismissal.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, which bars claims against state agencies unless the state has waived that immunity.

Nieves v. The New York State Office of Mental Health · filed 2021-03-16

The Eleventh Amendment therefore bars Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the New York State OMH, and Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against OMH are dismissed.

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

Johnson v. Department of Corrections · filed 2021-03-17

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 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Original Investments LLC v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2021-03-17

Oklahoma has not consented to this suit, and Congress has not abrogated Oklahoma’s immunity from plaintiff’s section 1983 claims.

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

Stephens v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2021-03-18

Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for injunctive relief against all Defendants and Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for monetary damages against Cartledge and Stephan in their official capacities because the Eleventh Amendment bars these claims.

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

Engel v. CO1 · filed 2021-03-19

The first exception is inapplicable because the Supreme Court has determined that § 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

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

Robinson v. The Division of Parole · filed 2021-03-23

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 retroactive monetary relief against state agencies and state officers in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Dumphord v. Gabriel · filed 2021-03-24

Based on the plain language of the Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking only retroactive monetary relief. [Record No. 1, pp. 62-63] Accordingly, the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

State correctional facilities that are branches of a state agency are immune from damages in a Section 1983 action under the Eleventh Amendment.

Rivera v. Attica Correctional Facility · filed 2021-03-24

To the extent Rivera intended to sue the Attica and Southport Correctional Facilities, these facilities are branches of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), an agency of the State of New York, and thus are immune from damages under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

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

Lyons v. The State of South Dakota · filed 2021-03-26

42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Teague v. The State of South Dakota · filed 2021-03-30

42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state would pay the employment-contract-based award.

MULLIGAN v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES · filed 2021-03-31

Because any "backpay [or] other form[ ] of monetary compensation based on an employment contract" would be paid by the state rather than these individual Defendants, see Omosegbon, 355 F.3d at 673, the Eleventh Amendment bars the claim for monetary damages against Cruz-Uribe and Malott in their individual capacities as well.

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

Kunz v. Mass Health · filed 2021-03-31

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 permits damages claims against state officials for constitutional violations, but sovereign immunity bars damages claims against states and state officials sued in their official capacities.

Al-Janabi v. Wayne State University · filed 2021-04-01

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individuals may recover damages against state officials for violations of the Constitution. It is well established that “the Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 suits seeking money damages against states and against state employees sued in their official capacities.” ... Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim is barred by Defendant’s sovereign immunity, and his claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Seelig v. The State of New York · filed 2021-04-01

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.

Mamonet v. T.L.R. Bronx Psychiatric Center · filed 2021-04-01

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 officials in their individual capacities are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Rodriguez v. McMullen · filed 2021-04-07

The Eleventh Amendment, however, “does not bar suits against officials in their individual capacities.”

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

Ibsen v. Diaz · filed 2021-04-07

Here, Ibsen has sued a state agency (the Department of Labor) and two state officials (the Governor and the President of the Board) in their official capacities. Because these claims are barred, they are also dismissed.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from official-capacity damages claims.

Johnson v. Scott · filed 2021-04-28

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits for money damages.

Powell v. Illinois Department of Corrections · filed 2021-04-29

None of the three exceptions apply to Count I—Powell does not seek prospective equitable relief, Illinois has not consented to suit, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity through the enactment of Section 1983.

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

Fields v. Berts · filed 2021-05-03

Fields objects to this conclusion, Pl.’s Objs. at 3, but it is the correct one. “The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages against state employees in their official capacities.”

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against Georgia sheriffs over county-jail conditions policies are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because sheriffs act as arms of the state in that function.

Andrews v. Carmel Biggers, Jr. · filed 2021-05-07

Andrews sued Pounds in his official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the district court granted Pounds’ motion to dismiss, concluding that under Purcell ex rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs County, 400 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2005), Pounds was due Eleventh Amendment immunity because he acts as an arm of the State “when promulgating policies and procedures governing conditions of confinement” at the county jail. Id. at 1325. ... The district court correctly held that Pounds was due Eleventh Amendment immunity under Purcell. See 400 F.3d at 1325.

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

Segal v. New York State Unified Court System · filed 2021-05-07

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 a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Rose v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-18

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

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

Francis v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-18

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

Amaro v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-18

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 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state official is immune from an official-capacity claim for monetary damages absent a waiver.

Bernardi v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision / Bedford Hills Correctional Facility · filed 2021-05-19

“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.” Megginson v. New York, No. 19-CV-7583, 2019 WL 4194497, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2019). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against Rushia in his official capacity are dismissed.

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

Powell v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-21

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

Cepeda v. Griffin · filed 2021-05-21

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 damages claims against Pennsylvania judicial districts are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Elansari v. Ragazzo · filed 2021-05-24

We further agree with the District Court that the claims for damages against the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit and Chester County are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against the Commonwealth, Bloomsburg University, and a state employee in her official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Vorobyev v. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania · filed 2021-05-25

As we have explained, the plaintiff has conceded the claims against the Commonwealth, Bloomsburg University, and the § 1983 claim against Wolfe in her official capacity, as these claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, these claims will be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not remove Eleventh Amendment immunity from state officials sued in their official capacities for monetary damages.

Case v. Ivey · filed 2021-06-01

Suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, like the one here, are no exception to the rule. ... Thus, Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on Plaintiffs’ claims against them in their official capacities for monetary damages.

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

Morris v. Trump · filed 2021-06-01

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.

Taylor v. The State of New York · filed 2021-06-02

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

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

Swinnie v. The State of New York · filed 2021-06-02

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

Richardson v. The State of New York · filed 2021-06-02

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 against state judges seeking relief from their prior orders are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the requested relief is retroactive.

Friends of Lubavitch, Inc v. Baltimore County Maryland · filed 2021-06-03

For three reasons, the Court agrees with Judge Defendants and finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. First, as Judge Defendants argue, Plaintiffs fundamentally seek relief from actions Judge Defendants have already taken—the orders Judge Defendants issued in Plaintiffs’ cases before them.

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

Ward v. State of Texas · filed 2021-06-08

Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 authorizes individual claims for violation of federal constitutional rights, § 1983 does not override the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Harris v. Mayeri · filed 2021-01-20

The claim for damages against Dr. Mayeri in his official capacity is dismissed without leave to amend because Eleventh Amendment immunity bars such a claim.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state corrections department and the prisons it operates are barred by the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Allen v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction · filed 2021-02-26

Plaintiff names the ODRC, OSP and SOCF as Defendants. The prisons are owned and operated by the ODRC, an agency of the State of Ohio. Ohio is immune from suits for damages under the Eleventh Amendment. ... Accordingly, these are not proper defendants, and the claims against each are dismissed, with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state agency is immune from damages claims under it in federal court.

Hines v. New York State Division of Human Rights Staff · filed 2021-06-14

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. ... Any claim for damages that Plaintiff is asserting against the NYSDHR or its staff is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and is dismissed as frivolous.

California community college districts are immune from Section 1983 suits under the Eleventh Amendment.

McLaurin v. Winchester · filed 2021-06-24

Los Rios Community College District’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended ... Complaint is granted without leave to amend, but without prejudice, on the grounds ... that the California community college districts are immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ... suits under the Eleventh Amendment ... Judgment is entered in favor of the District Defendants and against Plaintiff Destiny McLaurin.

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

Calzada v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · filed 2021-06-28

Congress has not abrogated the immunity of the States for claims arising under section 1983, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against a state, state agency, or state official in an official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Watson v. Davis · filed 2021-06-30

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

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

Tripathy v. Feuz · filed 2021-06-30

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 or RLUIPA.

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

Franzky v. South Dakota Human Services Center · filed 2021-07-06

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. ... The SDHSC is an agency of the DSS and considered an arm of the State of South Dakota. Because Franzky’s claims against SDHSC are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, his claims fails to “state a claim upon which relief can be granted” under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).

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

Clinton v. Perez · filed 2021-07-09

The Eleventh Amendment, which protects the state from suits for monetary relief, also protects state officials sued for damages in their official capacity. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985) (the Eleventh Amendment’s bar “remains in effect when state officials are sued for damages in their official capacity”); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979) (Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity). ... Given the Eleventh Amendment’s prohibition against damage claims against state officials in their official capacities, all claims brought against all of the defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit a money damages claim against New York State or its officials in their official capacity because the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims.

Letzelter v. Annucci · filed 2021-07-09

Because “New York has not waived its immunity, nor has Congress abrogated it” in section 1983 cases, Li, 712 F. App’x at 22 (citing Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 38-40 (2d Cir. 1977); Dube v. State Univ. of N.Y., 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir. 1990)), the Eleventh Amendment bars section 1983 suits for money damages against New York State and its officials in their official capacity, see Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985).

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

(PC) Lear v. Navarro · filed 2021-07-13

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendants in their official capacities, the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff's suit.

An unconsenting state agency is immune from a Section 1983 suit brought in federal court by one of its own citizens, regardless of the relief sought.

Erskine v. Delaware Department of Corrections (DDOC) · filed 2021-07-13

Delaware Department of Correction is dismissed based upon its immunity from suit. The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an unconsenting state or state agency from a suit brought in federal court by one of its own citizens, regardless of the relief sought.

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

Nicolai v. Childrens Hospital of Wisconsin Inc · filed 2021-07-15

The State of Wisconsin has not consented to be sued. Similarly, the Department of Children and Family Services, an agency of the State of Wisconsin, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Stevenson v. De Blasio · filed 2021-07-20

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.

State agencies and state officials sued in their official capacities are immune from section 1983 claims when the state has not waived its sovereign immunity.

Tarashuk v. Orangeburg County · filed 2021-07-26

Here, the court finds DPS and OCSO, as well as Director Smith and Sheriff Ravenell in their official capacities, are immune from suit regarding Plaintiff’s claims under section 1983.

State courts are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity from Section 1983 actions, including suits against their officers in an official capacity.

Cody v. Superior Court of California T · filed 2021-07-29

Leon Cody and Darlene Cody appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of state court proceedings. ... The district court properly dismissed the Codys’ action as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts are “arms of the state” entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978) (official capacity suits are “another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent”).

Section 1983 claims against a California superior court are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because a suit against that court is a suit against the state.

Finander v. County of Riverside · filed 2021-07-29

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

H.C. and Y.C. v. DeWine · filed 2021-07-29

Ohio has not consented to suit by statute or conduct in this litigation, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Hebert v. Louisiana State · filed 2021-08-02

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state officials in their official capacities when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Favors v. Ensz · filed 2021-08-02

Favors’ § 1983 claims for money damages against the Defendants—who are various MSOP officials and the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services—in their official capacities are, therefore, barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Pearson v. New York State · filed 2021-08-02

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.

Tennessee has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 claims.

Jones v. State of Tennessee Department of Correction · filed 2021-08-02

First, Tennessee has not waived its immunity for Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

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

Tripathy v. McClowski · filed 2021-08-09

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed.

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

Southeastern Public Safety Group Inc. v. Munn · filed 2021-08-11

Here, Plaintiff asserts only two causes of action pursuant to federal law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985, see (Doc. No. 7), and neither federal statute abrogates North Carolina’s Eleventh Amendment immunity as a matter of law.

State agencies and state officials sued in their official capacities are immune from monetary damages under Section 1983.

Wolfe v. Robinson · filed 2021-08-11

Further, Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to “arm[s] of the State,” and “protects state agencies and state official sued in their official capacity from liability for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Id. (citing Cromer v. Brown, 88 F.3d 1315, 1332 (4th Cir. 1996); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)).) ... The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 69) and incorporates it herein by reference as set forth above.

An SCDC officer is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 claim brought against her in her official capacity.

Wakefield v. Lt Wright · filed 2021-08-11

With regard to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant Wilson-James in her official capacity, the magistrate judge determined that Defendant Wilson-James is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity by virtue of her employment by SCDC, an agency and alter ego of the State of South Carolina. ... Having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record under the appropriate standards and, finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (ECF No. 36), and incorporates it herein.

An unconsenting state agency has Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit in federal court, regardless of the relief sought.

Montgomery v. Onuoha · filed 2021-08-13

Moreover, as an agency of the State of Delaware, the DOC has immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an unconsenting state or state agency from a suit brought in federal court by one of its own citizens, regardless of the relief sought.

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

Dubarry v. Capra · filed 2021-08-13

Because the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS) is an arm of the State of New York, Plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims against DOCCS are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed. Moreover, the individual defendants are all DOCCS employees and thus state agents. The Eleventh Amendment therefore also bars the claims for damages against the individual defendants in their official capacities, and these official-capacity claims are also dismissed.

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

ROLE v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS · filed 2021-08-18

Turning first to Plaintiffs’ §§ 1983 and 1985 claims (Counts One - Three),3 Defendants argue that dismissal of those federal claims is warranted because they are immune from suit pursuant to the protections of the Eleventh Amendment. This Court agrees. ... Here, Plaintiffs have sued the DCA and Clauss and Valdes solely in their official capacities. ... As a result, Plaintiffs’ federal claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

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

Guy v. Colbert County Jail · filed 2021-08-23

The magistrate judge also recommended construing the motion for summary judgment filed jointly by Defendants Marcus Rutland, Michael Williams, Steven Briggs Wright, and Colin James, as a motion to dismiss and granting that motion because: ... (2) Eleventh Amendment immunity barred Mr. Guy’s official capacity claims against Mr. Rutland, Mr. Wright, and Mr. James; ... Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation, as modified by this memorandum opinion.

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

Marin v. Carroll · filed 2021-08-23

Section 1983 does not express the requisite unequivocal intent to abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979), and California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity as to such claims.

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

Seifelnasr v. Medicad · filed 2021-08-24

“‘The immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state’ [and] 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.”

A state university that has not consented to suit is immune from § 1983 claims for damages and injunctive relief.

GUTTERMAN v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON · filed 2021-09-01

Because IU is a state entity, and since it has not consented to being sued in federal court, Plaintiffs' constitutional claims against it for damages and injunctive relief are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Wriston v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · filed 2021-09-13

Notably, § 1983 itself does not waive immunity.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction when barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Jackson v. Bickham · filed 2021-09-13

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Brandon Keith Jackson’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants Warden Keith Bickham, Warden Gerald Lebo, Colonel Donnie Seal, Major Wade Rigdon, Major Jacob Waskom, and Colonel Jeff Williams in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.1 ... The Fifth Circuit has instructed that claims that are barred by the Eleventh Amendment must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Lane v. Batchelor · filed 2021-09-14

The State of Florida has not waived its immunity from suits based upon constitutional civil rights violations. Gamble, 779 F.2d at 1511-18. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for monetary damages in their official capacities are dismissed.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims for monetary damages against state prison officials in their official capacities.

Hair v. Kendell · filed 2021-09-14

Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended that the motion be granted with respect to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Thus, having reviewed the Report and the record and, finding no clear error, the court agrees with and wholly ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the Report (ECF No. 30), which is incorporated herein by reference.

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

BURK v. EASON · filed 2021-09-15

Suits against state officials acting in their official capacities are really suits against the employing government agency, and as such, are also barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Rigsby v. Marler · filed 2021-09-17

Rather, as explained in the Report and Recommendation, the amendment bars suit against the State as well as suits for damages against state officials—the doctors at OSP named as Defendants—in their official capacities.

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

Foy v. The State of New York New York State Attorney General · filed 2021-09-20

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

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 suits in federal court against states that have not waived their immunity.

Rigsby v. Oklahoma State of · filed 2021-09-21

Furthermore, even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s Complaint as having been filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, none of the named Defendants would be properly before the Court by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Gawlik v. Semple · filed 2021-09-27

That bar does not apply, however, when a plaintiff seeks monetary damages from a state official sued in his or her individual capacity—even if the alleged wrongdoing occurred in the course of official duties.

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

Matlock v. Bramlett, Jr. · filed 2021-09-27

The United States Congress did not expressly abrogate the protection of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution for claims under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Irons v. United States Government · filed 2021-09-27

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

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state courts protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

McFarland v. St. Louis County Family Court Division · filed 2021-09-28

In addition, the only defendant in this case is a state court, which is not vulnerable to § 1983 actions because they are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity can bar a § 1983 claim seeking an injunction against a district attorney.

Schwarzer v. Shanklin · filed 2021-09-29

To the extent that he challenges the dismissal of his claim seeking an injunction ordering the district attorney “to stop slandering” him, that claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Sasser v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia · filed 2021-09-30

As relevant here, “Congress has not abrogated states’ immunity from § 1983 suits.”

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, which protects state agencies from Section 1983 claims.

Simmons v. Illinois Dept of Human Rights · filed 2021-09-30

Because the Department is a state agency, Simmons’ Section 1983 claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Harris v. Brennan · filed 2021-10-06

To the extent that he seeks punitive and compensatory damages from the defendants in their official capacities for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights, those claims for relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (Eleventh Amendment, which protects the state from suits for monetary relief, also protects state officials sued for damages in their official capacity); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979) (Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity).

Section 1983 claims for money damages against state officials in their official capacities remain barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when a report of staff wrongdoing does not waive that immunity.

Wood v. Sullivan · filed 2021-10-07

First, contrary to plaintiff's contention, a report issued by the New York State Office of Mental Health, Commission on Quality Care on March 13, 2013, regarding wrongdoing by staff at the Central New York Psychiatric Center ("CNYPC") would not constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to the official capacity claims asserted in the original complaint.

The Eleventh Amendment can bar Section 1983 claims against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Lopez v. Annucci · filed 2021-10-12

In dismissing the claims against defendants in their official capacities, the Court noted that the Eleventh Amendment barred such claims.

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

Jones v. Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2021-10-13

Defendants maintain that to the extent Jones seeks compensatory or punitive damages from them in their official capacities they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Motion at 6-7. Jones concedes as much. Response at 5. Considering this concession and controlling case law, the Motion is due to be granted as to this issue.

Section 1983 claims for non-injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

DURHAM v. KELLEY · filed 2021-10-13

The Court, therefore, will dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's claims to the extent they seek non-injunctive relief against Defendants in their official capacities because the Eleventh Amendment bars such claims.

Section 1983 damages claims against a county prosecutor’s office are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the office acts as an arm of the state.

SEBSO v. BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE · filed 2021-10-14

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution divests federal courts of their subject matter jurisdiction to hear suits brought against non-consenting states by private citizens, including suits for money damages under § 1983. ... As each of the Fitchik factors is satisfied, the BCPO is protected by the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Plaintiff’s claims against it will be dismissed with prejudice.

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

Presti v. Telefoni · filed 2021-10-15

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar Presti’s claims for money damages against Defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against an Alabama sheriff sued in his official capacity because Eleventh Amendment immunity has not been abrogated or waived.

Marshall v. Etowah County · filed 2021-10-18

Congress hasn’t abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity for § 1983 claims, and Alabama hasn’t waived its immunity. ... So Marshall cannot recover monetary damages for his § 1983 official capacity claims against Horton.

Damages claims against a state and a state official in her official capacity may be dismissed under sovereign immunity.

Campbell v. State of New York · filed 2021-10-20

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks money damages against the State of New York and Defendant Belgard in her official capacity, those claims are dismissed with prejudice.

A state parole board is immune from a Section 1983 claim, but its chairman is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from personal liability.

Slakman v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles · filed 2021-11-02

Accordingly, Slakman’s claims against the Board are dismissed on immunity grounds. ... But because Slakman also sues Chairman Barnard—who is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity—we address the merits of Slakman’s claims as they apply to Barnard.

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

Jusino v. Quiros · filed 2021-11-03

The claims seeking monetary damages for violations of Jusino’s federal constitutional rights by the defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2).

Section 1983 claims against state entities are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity absent a waiver.

Armfield v. IMSI · filed 2021-11-03

Second, Plaintiff cannot sue IMSI, the entity. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from entertaining a suit brought by a citizen against a state, without a waiver of sovereign immunity.

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

Gross v. Stine · filed 2021-11-03

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, see 42 P.C.S.A.§ 8521(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state university because the university shares the state’s immunity.

Dobbins, Andrew v. The University of Wisconsin Madison Transportation Services · filed 2021-11-04

This immunity includes an action brought under § 1983 for money damages, and it extends to state universities.

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

Dorazio v. Johnson · filed 2021-11-05

Plaintiff Johnny L. Dorazio, Sr., an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... As an agency of the State of Delaware, the Department of Correction is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Antonio v. General Service Administration United States of America Admin. of General Serv. · filed 2021-11-05

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 from suit in federal court.

Antonio v. State of New York · filed 2021-11-05

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

New Jersey county prosecutor’s offices are immune from § 1983 damages claims when performing investigative and law enforcement activities.

SMITH v. CAPE MAY COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE · filed 2021-11-12

Therefore, the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office is immune from Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 damages claims against a New York district attorney in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity when based on prosecutorial acts.

Klein v. Zugabie · filed 2021-11-16

Klein’s § 1983 and state law causes of action seeking damages for malicious prosecution against Zugabie in his official capacity (the only capacity in which he was sued) are therefore barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

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

Animashaun v. Toohill · filed 2021-11-18

Insofar as plaintiff's proposed amended pleading seeks to assert official capacity claims against Corrections Officer B. Chevier, Corrections Officer Z. Holmes, and Corrections Officer W. Hoffnagle, his motion to amend is denied because the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages against state officials acting in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not override a state agency’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from a claim for injunctive relief.

R W v. Columbia Basin College · filed 2021-11-19

The Court concludes that Defendants have met the requisite showing that CBC is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under § 1983 against Defendant Columbia Basin College is dismissed with prejudice.

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

Gunn v. Malani · filed 2021-11-23

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 defendants entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity are subject to dismissal.

Dalton v. Clements · filed 2021-12-02

The Magistrate issued a Report on November 2, 2021, recommending Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be granted because 1) Defendants are entitled as a matter of law to immunity under the Eleventh ... Amendment as to Plaintiff’s Sections 1983 and 1985 as well as Plaintiff’s ADA claims, and 2) Plaintiff failed to state a claim for a Rehabilitation Act violation. ... Accordingly, upon review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for monetary damages against a state corrections department protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Phillips v. DOCCS · filed 2021-12-08

In the October Order, the Court dismissed the claims against DOCCS pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. For the reasons set forth in the October Order, Plaintiff's § 1983 claims for monetary damages against DOCCS are dismissed.

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

Price v. St. Louis Correctional Facility · filed 2021-12-09

Further, the individual State of Michigan defendants would continue to be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on Plaintiff’s claim for damages (the only relief requested) against them in their official capacities.

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

El Bey v. State of New York (State) · filed 2021-12-09

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 damages claims against non-consenting states are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

MCCRAY v. JONES · filed 2021-12-10

To the extent that Plaintiff asserts claims against Essex County and New Jersey even though they are not named as parties in this action, this Court notes that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars suits by private citizens against non-consenting states in federal courts, including suits for money damages under § 1983.

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

Ramirez v. Oxford · filed 2021-12-13

Ramirez’s claims for money damages under Title I of the ADA, section 1983, and state law against DESPP and against Semosky in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity because DESPP is an instrumentality of the State of Connecticut.

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

Williams v. Paxton · filed 2021-12-13

Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979) (Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity). Accordingly, the request seeking monetary damages for violations of William’s Eighth Amendment rights is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2).

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

Gardner v. Hochul · filed 2021-12-21

Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims seeking damages from Hochul and Koeningsman are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for state agencies.

Thomas v. Kansas, State of · filed 2021-12-22

The statute underling Plaintiff’s claims, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, does not abrogate that immunity.

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

Wise v. Doe · filed 2021-12-23

The State of Maryland has not waived such immunity for claims brought pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, which extends to arms of the state.

Nimham-El-Dey v. City College · filed 2021-12-28

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting Section 1983. ... Thus, under the Eleventh Amendment, City College is immune from liability and Plaintiff’s claims against it are dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against Maryland state employees for actions taken in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Stedman v. Garlock · filed 2021-12-29

The State of Maryland has not waived such immunity for claims brought under § 1983. See Pevia v. Hogan, 443 F.Supp.3d 612, 632 (D.Md. 2020). Accordingly, Garlock is immune from suit for actions taken in his official capacity.

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

Mays v. Warden Evan Joseph · filed 2022-01-03

Nor did the district court err in dismissing Mays’s First Amendment and RLUIPA claims for monetary damages against Joseph in his official capacity. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits actions against state officials acting in their official capacity for monetary damages in federal court.

Section 1983 claims against state officials for retroactive relief are barred by state sovereign immunity when the state has not waived immunity and Congress has not abrogated it.

Moss v. Lee · filed 2022-01-06

Here, “the State has not waived its immunity to this suit or generally to suits under § 1983,” Durham v. Martin, 388 F. Supp. 3d 919, 935 (M.D. Tenn. 2019) (citing Berndt v. Tenn., 796 F.2d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 1986)). ... Accordingly, because Plaintiffs are citizens suing their own State, and “given the retroactive nature of the Plaintiffs’ . . . claim and requested relief . . . Plaintiffs’ claim is barred in federal court by sovereign immunity.”

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

Sedore v. Landfair · filed 2022-01-14

Sedore’s Eighth Amendment claims against the MDOC and the individual defendants in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Committe v. Does · filed 2022-01-19

Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims against John Doe Defendants are also barred by the Eleventh Amendment because, as pleaded, they are official-capacity claims.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against state agencies in federal court.

Wilson v. City Of Oakland · filed 2022-01-25

According to plaintiffs, they subsequently were subjected to excessive force and ... an unlawful detention, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as in violation of state law. ... Accordingly, plaintiffs having brought their claims against the CHP and those ... claims being barred, see Pennhurst State School & Hospital, 465 U.S. at 101, the CHP's ... motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

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

Cole v. Esely · filed 2022-01-25

Insofar as Cole may be seeking monetary damages from Defendants in their official capacities, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion is due to be granted to the extent Cole requests monetary damages from Defendants in their official capacities.