42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Frantz (ID 124145) v. Kansas, State of · filed 2022-01-26

The Court also found that the State of Kansas and its agencies are absolutely immune from suits for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment and that Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting a conspiracy claim. ... IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this matter is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

A state corrections department subdivision is immune from suit under Section 1983.

Bock 520205 v. Michigan Department of Corrections Health Service Operations · filed 2022-01-26

Likewise, the MDOC Health Service is a subdivision of the MDOC and, therefore, is absolutely immune from suit under Section 1983.

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

Lammers v. State of Nebraska · filed 2022-01-26

Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the NFEPA are also barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim for monetary damages or retrospective declaratory relief against a state judicial system protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Stowers v. The State of California Judicial System · filed 2022-02-07

Furthermore, the sole named Defendant -- the State of California Judicial System -- is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the extent that Plaintiff seeks monetary damages or retrospective declaratory relief.

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

GRAHAM v. NJ DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-02-08

As an initial matter, I will dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against the State of New Jersey DOC on immunity grounds. Eleventh Amendment immunity prevents Plaintiff from bringing a claim against New Jersey or its instrumentalities, including DOC.

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

Campbell v. Waterbury · filed 2022-02-09

Here, Campbell brings her Takings Clause claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it is beyond dispute that Congress’s enactment of § 1983 did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal court lawsuits.

In a § 1983 suit, the Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against state officials in their official capacities but permits claims for prospective injunctive relief.

Harlan v. Texas Workforce Commission · filed 2022-02-16

Therefore, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED regarding all claims for damages against Koehn, Lawrence, Andrade, and Alcantar, but not for the § 1983 claim seeking an injunction.

Section 1983 claims against the Office of the State Appellate Defender are barred by its immunity from suit.

Yeager v. Office of the State Appellate Defender · filed 2021-08-19

Yeager concedes that OSAD is immune from suit and that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count II. Accordingly, those claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

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

Hart v. Lawson · filed 2021-08-19

However, because the Whitley County Constable is an officer of the state, see Ky. Const. § 99, Bowling argues that the Eleventh Amendment bars the claim as to him in his official capacity. (DE 17-1 at 3). Hart concedes that dismissal is proper. (DE 18 at 2). As such, the Court DISMISSES Hart’s § 1983 claim against Bowling in his official capacity.

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

Wu v. The Civil Court of City of New York · filed 2022-02-22

In any event, as Judge Preska determined, Plaintiff’s claims against the Bronx Civil Court are barred under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against DHS and its employees in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Young v. Faulkner County Department of Human Services · filed 2022-02-23

First, claims against DHS and Ms. Harper and Ms. Lowe in their official capacity must be dismissed because all three are entitled to immunity from § 1983 claims under the Eleventh ... Amendment.

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

Labossiere v. Downstate Correctional Facility · filed 2022-02-24

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

Coleman v. Stanford · filed 2022-02-28

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

Section 1983 claims against state employees in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state consents to suit.

Durant v. Phillies · filed 2022-02-28

Regarding his first argument, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that Phillips is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for the claims, which are against him in his official capacity.

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

Prescott v. Johnson · filed 2022-03-07

It follows that the Eleventh Amendment bars recovery of damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from state employees in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not impose Monell liability on state agencies, which are immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

Oren v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2022-03-09

Indeed, as the plaintiff has conceded in his brief in opposition, it is well established that Monell liability is limited to municipalities, and state agencies such as the DOC are immune from § 1983 liability under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a Pennsylvania county court that shares the Commonwealth’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

MOORE v. DELAWARE COUNTY COURTS · filed 2022-03-10

There is no indication Pennsylvania has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Therefore, Mr. Moore’s claims against the Delaware County Courts are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state correctional facility cannot be sued under it.

Andrews v. All of the officers in E-North · filed 2022-03-14

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. ... Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Sullivan, which is a correctional facility operated by a New York State agency, are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed.

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

Powell v. Delaware State University · filed 2022-03-16

DSU is a state entity, and therefore the Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 claim against it.

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

Young v. West Virginia University · filed 2022-03-17

While 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a federal cause of action for alleged violations of an individual’s constitutional right, it “does not abrogate” the Eleventh Amendment.

A state correctional center is immune from a Section 1983 claim under the Eleventh Amendment.

Nathan v. Lawrence Correctional Center · filed 2022-03-22

As an entity of the IDOC, Lawrence falls within the scope of Eleventh Amendment immunity, so Plaintiff cannot pursue a claim against the entity.

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

Sears v. Cooper · filed 2022-03-28

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

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

Trotter v. Akinbayo · filed 2022-03-28

The claims raised against State Defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and, therefore, State Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground will be granted.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 damages claims against states and arms of the state.

CALLAN v. OCEAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-03-28

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 suits against states seeking monetary damages. ... OCDOC is an arm of the state of New Jersey and thus, entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against OCDOC.

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

Green Haven Prison Preparative Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. New York State Department of Corrections a · filed 2022-03-28

Because DOCCS “is an arm of the State of New York,” Plaintiffs’ § 1983 and RLUIPA claims for damages against DOCCS are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a claim for prospective relief against a state agency is barred.

Williams v. Barometre · filed 2022-03-28

Additionally, § 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Accordingly, Ex Parte Young does not apply, and Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against DOCCS are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against state employees in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state consents to suit.

Durant v. Phillies · filed 2022-03-29

Regarding his first argument, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that Phillips is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for the claims, which are against him in his official capacity. ... Phillips is, therefore, immune from Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state officers are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when they seek relief for a completed search and seizure rather than an ongoing violation.

Halabo v. Michael · filed 2022-03-30

The Eleventh Amendment applies and bars Plaintiffs’ official capacity claims against Michael and Maylone in Counts I and II.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity; prospective relief against state officers requires an alleged ongoing violation of federal law.

Denver Homeless Out Loud v. Denver, Colorado · filed 2022-03-31

“[T]he United States Supreme Court has previously held that Congress did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” ... Because Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not establish that State Defendants are engaging in an ongoing violation of federal law, the Court finds that the Ex parte Young exception does not apply, and thus, the Eleventh Amendment bars their federal claims for injunctive relief. ... Therefore, due to the jurisdictional bar, Claims 1-4 are dismissed with prejudice to the extent Plaintiffs seek damages against the State Defendants in their official capacities.

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

Henderson v. Martin · filed 2022-03-31

Any claims seeking monetary damages for violations of Henderson’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 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent a waiver.

Fugate v. Huff · filed 2022-03-31

Accordingly, since Fugate seeks monetary damages against defendant Taylor, the Eleventh Amendment bars his official-capacity claim, and the Court dismisses it.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Section 1983 claims against a state bar that is an arm of the state.

Pomeroy v. Utah State Bar · filed 2022-04-04

Because the USB is an arm of the State, it is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. All claims brought against the USB must, therefore, be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, which bars claims against an arm of the state absent a waiver.

Roberts v. The NYS Department of Taxation and Finance · filed 2022-04-04

The Eleventh Amendment therefore precludes Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 against the DTF.

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

Orendorf v. Office of Behavioral Health · filed 2022-04-05

As explained in the Recommendation, the claims against OBH and CMHIP are barred by the Eleventh Amendment because they are arms of the state. ... The Court discerns no error on the face of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that the claims against OBH, CMHIP, and FCBS should be dismissed without prejudice, as well as the § 1983 claims against Defendants Smith and Martinez, while the state law claims against them should be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 claims against state defendants are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the plaintiff alleges facts establishing an Ex Parte Young exception.

Suarez v. Ducey · filed 2022-04-19

Because Suarez failed to allege facts that could establish an exception under Ex Parte Young, the district court properly dismissed Suarez’s claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Hettinga v. Newsom · filed 2022-04-21

The district court properly dismissed Hettinga’s claims against the State of California and defendants Newsom and Padilla in their official capacities on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

South Carolina sheriffs and their deputies are immune from official-capacity § 1983 damages claims in federal court.

Brownlee v. Anderson County Detention Center · filed 2022-04-25

It is well settled, both in South Carolina and federal law, that a Sheriff in South Carolina is an arm of the State and not a County employee, and therefore, is entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity in his or her official capacity from suit in Federal Court.

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

Roach v. Department of Correctional Central Records · filed 2022-04-26

Hence, the State of Delaware, the DOC as an agency of the State of Delaware, and the Maryland State Parole Commission are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

JAMES v. BACHMAN · filed 2022-05-09

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 the Defendant Probation Department employees in their official capacities.

In an official-capacity § 1983 claim for prospective relief, Ex parte Young does not overcome sovereign immunity when the officials have neither enforced nor threatened to enforce the challenged law.

Minnesota RFL Caucus v. Freeman · filed 2022-05-10

Here, the county officials’ affidavits all show that they have not enforced or threatened to enforce § 211B.02. Therefore, the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Immunity is inapplicable.

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

Carbajal v. Fresno Police Department · filed 2022-05-18

Plaintiff cannot pursue claims for damages or injunctive relief against CDCR or California Youth Authority in this action. Here, CDCR and California Youth Authority are all state agencies that are immune from civil rights claims under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against a state official sued in her official capacity when Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity applies.

WEATHERSPOON v. KHOURY · filed 2022-05-18

And as explained in previous Orders of this Court, because of sovereign immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment to states and their officials sued in their official capacities, Weatherspoon cannot pursue claims for monetary damages against Khoury in federal court.

A state official sued in an official capacity for damages under Section 1983 is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Lamar OCI South Corporation v. Tennessee Department of Transportation · filed 2022-05-31

Commissioner Bright, in his official capacity, is immune from Lamar’s claim for monetary damages.

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

Perry v. Erdos · filed 2022-06-02

Perry does helpfully clarify in his Objections that he seeks to sue the Defendants for monetary relief only in their individual capacities. (Id. at #90). Thus, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar his claims.

Section 1983 claims against a state board may be dismissed when the board is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Harris v. Hutson · filed 2022-06-07

For the reasons above, the Court ADOPTS the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report. The Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART as to the Board and DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all other Defendants.

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

(PC) Barker v. Goat · filed 2022-06-08

Here, Defendants CDCR and CHCF are immune because they are state agencies responsible for the incarceration and correction of prisoners.

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

Harris v. Circuit Courts of St. Louis County · filed 2022-06-13

The first exception does not apply 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’ sovereign immunity.

Thompson v. New York State Corrections and Community Supervision · filed 2022-06-14

It is well-settled that Congress did not abrogate states' immunity through Section 1983.

Maryland and its officials acting in their official capacities are immune from § 1983 suits in federal court because Maryland has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Lambe v. Frost · filed 2022-06-15

The State of Maryland has not waived such immunity for claims brought pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, Defendants are immune from suit for actions taken in their official capacity.

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

Stone v. Bureau of Community Sanctions · filed 2022-06-17

Congress did not intend that § 1983 abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the State of Ohio has not waived its immunity to suit in federal court; therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint ... is also subject to dismissal on the basis of immunity.

Section 1983 claims against Maryland and state officials acting in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because Maryland has not waived it.

Bailey v. Frost · filed 2022-06-24

The State of Maryland has not waived such immunity for claims brought pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, Defendants are immune from suit for actions taken in their official capacity.

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

Starr v. St. Clair County FOC · filed 2022-06-27

Congress has not abrogated the Eleventh Amendment immunity of States with regard to suits under §§ 1983 or 1985.

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

Montgomery v. Dawson · filed 2022-06-27

Congress has not abrogated the Eleventh Amendment immunity of States with regard to suits under §§ 1983 or 1985.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency or a state officer in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state consents to suit.

Cutner v. Johnson · filed 2022-06-30

Second, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against SCDC and Johnson in his official capacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits federal courts from hearing claims against a state or its agents, instrumentalities, and employees, unless the state has consented to the suit. ... After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds that the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain clear error.

Section 1983 claims against CUNY are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, but claims for prospective injunctive relief may proceed against CUNY officials in their official capacities.

Mamatkulov v. City University of New York · filed 2022-07-01

As set forth above, claims under section 1983 seeking injunctive relief can proceed, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, only against a CUNY official in an official capacity, and not against CUNY itself.

Section 1983 does not allow a damages claim against a state attorney general when the suit is effectively against the state and the state has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Angel v. Rutledge · filed 2022-07-07

Second, General Rutledge is immune from suit for damages. Because damages are the sole remedy Ms. Angel seeks, the suit is in effect one against the State.

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

Carroll v. State of California · filed 2022-07-08

Thus, the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims for damages against the State of California and against defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged ongoing violations may proceed against a state official despite an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense.

Holmes v. Knodell · filed 2022-07-11

Plaintiffs allege Defendant’s policies and operation of the SNAP program violate the ADA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Finally, Defendant’s motion to dismiss also claims it is entitled Eleventh Amendment immunity, that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the ADA. A review of Plaintiffs’ Complaint under the applicable pleading standards shows Plaintiffs have pled enough to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs allege ongoing violations and seek prospective declaratory and injunctive relief, they allege systemic failures and the impact of those failures on persons with disabilities, and the Court finds no basis to dismiss for lack of exhaustion.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, so state agencies remain immune from suit absent consent.

Cardello-Smith v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-07-14

“Congress did not intend to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by passing section 1983,” Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 987 F.2d 376, 383 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979)). ... Thus, the MDOC and the Office of the Attorney General are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Martinez v. Nebraska Dept of Health and Human Services · filed 2022-07-14

Martinez indicates this is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... NRC and the Department are immune from suit here. The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages by private parties against a state, state instrumentalities and an employee of a state sued in the employee’s official capacity.

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

Coleman v. Stanford · filed 2022-07-18

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

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against a state agency.

Ezeadiugwu v. PA Department of Labor/Industry · filed 2022-07-22

The plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for damages against this state-agency defendant is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Carter v. State of Florida Department of Children and Families · filed 2022-07-26

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

State officials sued for damages in their individual capacities under Section 1983 are not shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the judgment would not operate against the state.

Wilson v. Dunn · filed 2022-07-28

Mr. Wilson states his federal claims against the Defendants only in their individual capacities under Section 1983. ... So Eleventh Amendment immunity does not shield the Defendants.

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

McArthur v. Summit Security · filed 2022-07-28

To the extent that McArthur attempts to state a claim under Section 1983, that statute does not override the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity as a matter of law.

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

Harding v. State of New York · filed 2022-08-08

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

Simons v. Davis · filed 2022-08-10

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities as employees because TDCJ is an instrumentality of the state.

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

Pew v. Jones · filed 2021-12-15

Defendants assert that they are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the extent that Plaintiff attempts to sue them in their official capacities.70 Plaintiff concedes this point.71 Accordingly, I will grant Defendants ... summary judgment to the extent that Plaintiff’s claims are brought against them in their official capacities.

A state department is immune from a § 1983 suit unless an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Sedore v. MDOC · filed 2022-01-14

This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs deliberate indifference claim against the Michigan Department of Corrections, a Department of the State of Michigan, is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Luce v. Kelly · filed 2022-01-24

In short, the individual Plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot because this Court can no longer afford them any effectual relief, and the Eleventh Amendment bars their claim for money damages.

Section 1983 claims against California’s corrections department and a state prison are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

(PC) Fairchild-Littlefield v. Attinello · filed 2022-02-03

The magistrate judge properly recommended that the following defendants ... accused of deliberate indifference be dismissed: Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Defendant Central California Women’s Facility, because they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; and Defendants B. Brown and Warden Espinoza, on the grounds that they did not personally act against Plaintiff.

A state official sued under § 1983 for prospective relief is not covered by the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity if the official has no enforcement authority over the challenged law.

Farhoud v. Brown · filed 2022-02-03

The exception to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity under Ex parte Young does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims against Governor Brown because she has no enforcement authority over H.B. 4401.

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

Bellamy v. Brown · filed 2022-08-12

Bellamy titles his Petition as being filed in the alternative under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but he has failed to pay the $402 filing fee. ... Thus, to the extent Bellamy seeks to assert a claim against the Attorney General, the “Child Support Administration” or state employees acting in their official capacities, the claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims against the Pennsylvania State Police and a state trooper in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

ROARK v. IRIZARRY · filed 2022-08-16

The Eleventh Amendment bars these claims against both PSP and Irizarry in his official capacity.

Section 1983 claims against a state, its agencies, and state employees acting in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state consents to suit in federal court.

Day v. Guistwite · filed 2022-08-22

Day titles his Petition as being filed in the alternative under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but he has failed to pay the $402 filing fee. Nevertheless, the claim fails as a matter of law. ... Thus, to the extent Day seeks to assert a claim against the Attorney General, the “Child Support Administration” or state employees acting in their official capacities, the claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Sergeant Nathan D. Crisp v. The State of Georgia · filed 2022-08-23

And § 1983 does not abrogate immunity here either.

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

Campbell v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction · filed 2022-08-25

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against LaCourse and Chambers-Smith in their official capacities for monetary damages are dismissed.

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

Morris v. Tanner · filed 2022-08-26

Texas has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and Congress did not abrogate that immunity when enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A § 1983 claim against state officials based only on an alleged violation of state law is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Lake v. Fontes · filed 2022-08-26

As mentioned supra, Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ex parte Young to challenge government officers’ “ongoing violation of federal law.” ... The Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs’ claims.

An official-capacity Section 1983 claim against a state prison official is subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Washington v. Garcia · filed 2022-08-26

To any extent that Plaintiff sues Garcia in his official capacity, Eleventh Amendment bars such claims, and those claims must be dismissed.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against the individually named officials are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

DOYLE v. RUMMSEY · filed 2022-08-29

As the MSAD 51 Defendants properly assert, to the extent that the Complaint purports to state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against any individual Defendant in his or her “official capacity,” such claims fail because the individually named officials are immune from any official capacity claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Dicks v. State of Hawaii Office of Elections · filed 2022-08-30

Nor has Congress abrogated immunity for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, to the extent Plaintiffs attempt to assert a civil rights claim under Article I, § 4 of the Constitution.

Section 1983 claims against a state, its agencies, and state employees acting in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state consents to suit in federal court.

Bivens v. Guistwite · filed 2022-09-02

Bivens titles his petition as being filed in the alternative under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but he has failed to pay the $402 filing fee. Nevertheless, the claim fails as a matter of law. The State, as well as its agents and agencies, enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits brought in federal court. ... Thus, to the extent Bivens seeks to assert a claim against the Attorney General, the “Child Support Administration,”, or state employees acting in their official capacities, the claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

McZeal v. State of Louisiana · filed 2022-09-06

But it is well established that § 1983 did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, which protects state agencies such as the New York DMV from suit in federal court.

Karl v. New York Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 2022-09-06

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims brought under Section 1983 against the DMV under the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment immunity, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1983 claims against a Pennsylvania state judge in her official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, including claims for damages or injunctive relief.

SCHEER v. FISH · filed 2022-09-07

As a result, Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to bar Plaintiff's official capacity claims against Judge Rangos, including any putative claims for damages or injunctive relief.

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

Hair v. Parker · filed 2022-09-07

Likewise, there are no objections to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court finds that the magistrate judge applied the correct legal standards, agrees with the conclusion reached by the magistrate judge, and finds no reason to deviate from the recommendation that summary judgment be granted to the extent that Plaintiff is asserting his claims against Defendants in their official capacities.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 claim against a state entity in federal court.

Gibbs v. Utilization Review Committee · filed 2022-09-08

The Eleventh Amendment precludes a claim in federal court against a state entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against a state or its officials acting in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state consents to suit in federal court.

Serghori v. Guistwite · filed 2022-09-08

Mr. Serghori titles his petition as being filed in the alternative under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but he has failed to pay the $402 filing fee. Nevertheless, the claim fails as a matter of law. ... Thus, to the extent that Mr. Serghori seeks to assert a claim against the Attorney General, the “Child Support Administration,”, or state employees acting in their official capacities, the claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Wright v. Missouri Department of Mental Health · filed 2022-09-12

The first exception is inapplicable because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not revoke a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Rosen v. The State of Florida · filed 2022-09-19

The Eleventh Amendment therefore bars Plaintiff’s Section 1983 and 1985 claims against the State of Florida from proceeding in federal court, and these claims are dismissed based on that immunity.

State prison agencies are immune from § 1983 claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

(PC) Carter v. Murphy · filed 2022-09-21

The Court also finds that Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim against Defendants CSP and CDCR, who are immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state court judge in his official capacity are treated as claims against the state and barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Abdulnabi v. McMillan · filed 2022-09-22

A suit against a state court judge in his official capacity is, in reality, a suit against the state itself. ... Therefore, Eleventh Amendment immunity applies, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such claims.

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

SAUNDERS v. NJ DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-09-23

In sum, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, but official-capacity claims for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief may proceed.

BRACEY v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-09-28

As it pertains to the first exception, it is well-settled that by enacting § 1983 Congress has not abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Therefore, Plaintiff can only proceed against moving Defendants in their official capacity for injunctive or declaratory relief.

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

Thompson v. New York State Corrections and Community Supervision · filed 2022-09-29

Moreover, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Brown v. Louisiana State · filed 2022-09-30

Here, there can be no doubt that the defendant judge, state agencies, and the individuals in their official capacities are immune from suit. In accordance with longstanding precedent, federal courts lack jurisdiction over suits against state officials sued in an official capacity for monetary relief. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over all claims for monetary relief against the defendants in their official capacity.

Section 1983 does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims against a state, its agencies, or state employees acting in their official capacities.

Dillion v. Guistwite · filed 2022-09-30

Petitioner titles his petition as being filed in the alternative under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but he has failed to pay the $402 filing fee. Nevertheless, the claim fails as a matter of law. ... Thus, to the extent Petitioner seeks to assert a claim against the Attorney General, the “Child Support Administration,” or state employees acting in their official capacities, the claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against Oregon state agencies and state officials sued in their official capacities are barred in federal court by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not waived it.

Abney v. Gates · filed 2022-10-03

The State of Oregon has not waived its sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. Defendants ODOC and OSCI are therefore immune from suit in this court and are both entitled to summary judgment. ... To the extent plaintiff sues defendant Silva and defendant Gates in their official capacities, those claims are also barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state, its agencies, or state employees acting in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state consents.

Banks v. Guistwite · filed 2022-10-04

To the extent that the Petition could be construed as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Banks has not paid the $402 civil filing fee, and nevertheless, the claim fails as a matter of law. ... Thus, to the extent Banks seeks to assert a claim against the Attorney General, the “Child Support Administration,” or state employees acting in their official capacities, the claim is barred by the: Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation cannot proceed in federal court because the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit.

Rojas v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation · filed 2022-10-06

The CDCR is the sole Defendant. The Eleventh Amendment bars from the federal courts suits ... against the CDCR. Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff may not bring his claims against the CDCR in federal court.

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

Cooper-Keel v. Michigan, State of · filed 2022-10-06

After thoroughly setting forth the factual background and motion standard, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Kengis and Bakker as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (R&R, ECF No. 19 at PageID.266–267, 271) and against the State of Michigan, Kengis, and Bakker as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity (id. at PageID.267–269, 271). ... Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court.

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

Greer v. State of Hawaii · filed 2022-10-07

Since the Young doctrine does not apply to states and state agencies, all of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the State and the State Agency Defendants must be dismissed for failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state parole officer in her official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Williams v. Vargas · filed 2022-10-11

To the extent Plaintiff seeks money damages from Defendant in her official capacity, such claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officers in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Richeson v. Weiser · filed 2022-10-12

In recommending dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, Judge Hegarty properly recommended that such claims under § 1983 be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state agency and state officials in their official capacities are barred in federal court by Eleventh Amendment immunity absent waiver or abrogation.

Carter v. Wyoming Department of Corrections · filed 2022-10-13

The only claims dismissed with prejudice were those seeking monetary relief from WDOC and Voightsberger and Shannon in their official capacities, and we agree with the district court that amendment would be futile for such claims because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Stover v. The College of William and Mary in Virginia · filed 2022-10-18

Similarly, because Defendants are employed by W & M, they are also entitled to Eleventh Amendment protection as state officials. As such, the Eleventh Amendment plainly bars Plaintiff from seeking damages against the individual defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not displace Eleventh Amendment immunity for damages claims against state agencies or state officials sued in their official capacities.

Jafri v. NH Supreme Court Committee on Character and Fitness · filed 2022-10-18

In sum, Eleventh Amendment immunity is applicable here, and is not barred by an alleged, actual violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jafri’s claims seeking monetary damages against the Office of Bar Admissions and the committee, as well as the individual defendants in their official capacities, are accordingly dismissed.

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

Curtis v. The State of New York · filed 2022-10-24

The Eleventh Amendment therefore precludes Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 for damages against the State of New York. The Eleventh Amendment also precludes Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 for damages against any individual DOCCS officials, who are all New York State officials, in their official capacities.

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

Bentely v. Thomas · filed 2022-10-24

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.

State courts as entities are immune from suits under § 1983.

Jones v. Warren, Co Courts · filed 2022-10-31

State courts as entities are not vulnerable to suits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Marker v. State of New Mexico, Office of the Secretary of State · filed 2022-10-31

“First, the United States Supreme Court has previously held that Congress did not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Id. (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979)). Petitioner has not shown that Congress has abrogated the State of New Mexico's Eleventh Amendment immunity in this case.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a mayor, city, or other defendant solely under a theory of respondeat superior.

Careaga v. James · filed 1980-04-09

Any attempt to hold the mayor, city, or people of St. Louis liable is predicated upon a theory of respondeat superior which does not apply in suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on supervisory officials under respondeat superior.

Delgado v. Sheriff of Milwaukee County Jail · filed 1980-04-24

It is true that supervisory officials may not be held liable in § 1983 actions on a theory of respondeat superior.

Section 1983 makes constitutional-rights deprivations actionable independently of state law and does not permit recovery against a supervisor solely under respondeat superior.

Vasquez v. H. W. Snow and Bill Cooper · filed 1980-05-02

It is of no moment that appellees may have trespassed at state law, ... since “[sjection 1983 makes a deprivation of [fourth amendment] rights actionable independently of state law.” ... Although Snow was Cooper’s nominal supervisor, we have “rejected respondeat superior as a theory of recovery under § 1983.”

Section 1983 imposes liability based on a defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation and does not permit respondeat superior liability.

Love v. Davis · filed 1973-02-13

Upon reconsideration, this Court came to the conclusion that, under the Civil Rights statutes upon which the Court’s jurisdiction was based, these two defendants’ involvement must be personal; and, if not, then they are not liable or responsible to plaintiff for the decedent’s injury or death.

Section 1983 requires allegations of the defendant’s personal involvement to support a claim for monetary relief.

Black v. Brown · filed 1973-03-13

Plaintiff fails to allege any overt acts of involvement by the defendants to substantiate his claims for money damages under the Civil Rights Act. Personal involvement of the defendant must be alleged to state a claim for relief. Schnell v. City of Chicago, 407 F.2d 1084 (7th Cir. 1969). Plaintiff has ... not stated a cause of action upon which monetary relief may be granted pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on supervisors solely through respondeat superior; a police supervisor must have personally participated in the misconduct.

Ashenhurst Ex Rel. Hall v. Carey · filed 1973-03-16

Defendant Stokes contends that because he is a police supervisor, he is not liable in the instant action. The doctrine of respondeat superior clearly does not apply in civil rights cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ashenhurst v. Carey, supra; Barrows v. Faulkner, et al., 327 F.Supp. 1190, 1191 (N.D.Okl.1971); Sandberg v. Daley, 306 F.Supp. 277 (N.D.Ill.1969). Further, courts have uniformly held that police supervisory personnel are not liable for damages to one injured by police misconduct absent direct personal participation. Ashenhurst v. Carey, supra; Barrows v. Faulkner, et al., supra; Sandberg v. Daley, supra; Mach v. Lewis, 298 F.Supp. 1351 (S.D.Ga.1969); Patrum v. Martin, 292 F.Supp. 370 (W.D.Ky.1968); Runnels v. Parker, 263 F.Supp. 271 (C.D.Cal.1967); Pritchard v. Downie, 216 F.Supp. 621 (E.D.Ark.1963); Jordan v. Kelly, 223 F.Supp. 731 (W.D.Mo.1963). However, the affidavit of defendant James J. Stokes clearly indicates that even though he acted in the capacity of a police supervisor, he personally participated in the disputed incident. While the version of the defendant as to what transpired may differ from that of the plaintiff, this is a factual issue to be determined by trial and not by a pre-trial motion.

Section 1983 does not impose respondeat superior liability on a defendant who lacks personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.

Jennings v. Davis · filed 1973-04-20

We agree with the trial court’s holding that this action is not maintainable against the appellees under the doctrine of respondeat superior, nor do we find the complaint sufficient on any other basis of liability. ... The appellants admittedly placed heavy reliance upon the respondeat superior theory in pursuing this action. We, of course, are to afford remedial statutes such as § 1983 a liberal construction, but expressly reject the application of the doctrine on this set of facts, as have the vast majority of federal courts in cases such as this.

Section 1983 covers supervisors and subordinates administering a state prison when they abuse constitutional power.

Rippen v. Nickles · filed 1971-02-12

The named defendants, in their respective capacities as supervisor and subordinates in the administration of Virginia’s penal system, come within the ambit of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that section would apply should the court find an abuse of Constitutional power.

Section 1983 does not impose respondeat superior liability, and ordinary negligence that lacks constitutional dimension is not enough to state a claim under the statute.

Doe v. Sullivan · filed 1979-05-04

Again, the plaintiff’s action against the Sheriff is in the form of respondeat superi- or and such a cause of action is not available to the plaintiff in a Section 1983 cause of action.

Section 1983 requires more than simple ratification of an impermissible act for supervisory liability when the ratification rests on independent legitimate reasons; the plaintiff must show a failure to supervise that caused the harm.

Bowen v. Charlie Watkins, Chief of Police of the City of Columbus, Mississippi, Etc. · filed 1982-03-08

Accordingly, we conclude that, to impose liability on a supervisory official, section 1983 requires more than a simple ratification of an impermissible act when the ratification is based on independent legitimate reasons. To prevail against the City Councilmen, the plaintiffs must show a failure to supervise properly that caused the harm.

Section 1983 imposes liability for deprivation of federal rights under color of state law, but a defendant must have acquiesced in or participated in the violation; respondeat superior does not suffice.

Horne v. Farrell · filed 1983-01-28

The alleged actions of Constable Farrell, while he was in uniform and in the locale in which a person might expect to find a constable performing his functions, were taken under the color of state law. ... The Third Circuit requires acquiescence or participation in the violation before liability attaches under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose vicarious liability on a state supervisory official for subordinates’ actions; the plaintiff must show personal participation or a causal connection, which may be based on breach of a state-law duty causing constitutional injury.

Woodrow Barksdale, II v. John T. King, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Louisiana · filed 1983-03-07

As a state supervisory official, defendant King cannot be held liable for the actions of his subordinates in a § 1983 action solely on the basis of vicarious liability. ... Appellant must establish either that King personally participated in the acts that constitute the alleged constitutional violation or that a causal connection exists between King’s actions and the alleged violation. ... This causal connection may be established by showing that King breached a duty imposed upon him by state and local law and that this breach caused the plaintiff constitutional injury.

Section 1983 requires liability to be established for each individual defendant and limits supervisory liability.

Zandhri v. Dortenzio · filed 2002-10-31

The Court must follow section 1983’s requirement of establishing liability as to particular individuals and its limitations as to supervisory liability.

A claim for monetary damages under § 1983 requires specific personal wrongdoing by an individual defendant; respondeat superior is insufficient.

Vandiver v. Martin · filed 2004-02-12

In his complaint, Plaintiff named Defendant Martin only as a defendant under the theory of respondeat superior. However, the general rule when seeking monetary damages under § 1983 is that a claimant must aver some specific, personal wrongdoing on the part of the individual defendant. ... Theories of vicarious liability or respondeat superior are insufficient.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on officials who neither participated in the challenged acts nor inadequately supervised those who did.

Pratt v. Bernstein · filed 1981-12-22

Since these four defendants did not directly participate in the arrest and detention of plaintiff, or in the institution of criminal proceedings against her, and since they have not been proven to have inadequately supervised those individuals who did directly participate in these acts, they cannot be found liable for those acts under Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff seeking damages to allege each defendant's specific personal wrongdoing and does not allow vicarious liability or respondeat superior.

Etheridge v. Evers · filed 2004-06-04

IT IS ORDERED that the Court affirms the magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. ... In order to state a claim for monetary damages under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege some specific, personal wrongdoing on the part of the individual defendant, and theories of vicarious liability or respondeat superior are not sufficient.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a government official based solely on respondeat superior and requires personal involvement or a causal connection to the constitutional deprivation.

Chalmers v. Ridge · filed 2004-06-09

A government official can be held liable only if he was personally involved in the acts causing the deprivation of an individual’s constitutional rights, or if there was a causal connection between his wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation sought to be redressed.

Section 1983 does not impose respondeat superior liability on supervisors; liability requires that supervisors condoned, encouraged or knowingly acquiesced in the alleged misconduct.

Mayers v. Sedgwick Claims Management Servicess, Inc. · filed 2004-06-10

The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 lawsuits to impute liability onto supervisory personnel; rather, in order to find them liable, a plaintiff must allege that the supervisors condoned, encouraged or knowingly acquiesced in the alleged misconduct.

Section 1983 does not automatically apply the liability standard for a prison official’s failure to act to other state officials.

Gero v. Richard A. Henault, Dale J. Gero v. Richard A. Henault, City of Pittsfield · filed 1984-08-29

We do not think that the standard of liability of a prison official can be applied writ large to other state officials.

Section 1983 requires a showing of personal responsibility to recover monetary damages from a supervisor; respondeat superior alone does not suffice.

Johnson v. Glick · filed 1973-06-29

The rule in this circuit is that when monetary damages are sought under Sec. 1983, the general doctrine of respondeat superior does not suffice and a showing of some personal responsibility of the defendant is required.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor solely because of that position; the supervisor must cause or condone the constitutional wrong.

Coyne v. Boeckmann · filed 1981-04-14

The doctrine of respondeat superi- or is not applicable to a § 1983 claim. ... Direct participation, whether in the form of causing or condoning the constitutional wrong, is required.

Section 1983 requires a defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged deprivation; supervisory responsibility alone does not establish liability.

Wickstrom v. Ebert · filed 1984-04-05

As the Court has already suggested, no section 1983 liability can attach to defendant LaFollette absent some showing — not present here — that he directed the alleged deprivation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights or allowed it to continue with his knowledge. Since the defendant was not himself involved in the plaintiffs’ state prosecutions but instead delegated that responsibility to his assistants, the inapplicability of the doctrine of respondeat superior precludes imputation of any wrongdoing to him, even assuming that any such wrongdoing took place.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a police chief for officers’ conduct without supervisory authority over them or evidence that the chief participated in or directed their conduct.

Capers v. Burke · filed 1984-10-04

Burke, however, has no supervisory authority over the other named defendants in that they are police officers for the County of St. Louis. The plaintiff has failed to present this Court with any evidence indicating that Burke participated in or directed the activity of the police officers. Thus, plaintiff’s claim against defendant Burke must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not impose respondeat superior liability, but permits individual capacity liability for supervisors when their own actions have a causal connection to the claimed civil rights violation.

Medcalf v. State of Kan. · filed 1986-01-27

Unquestionably, the doctrine of respondeat superior does not operate in a suit brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant's personal involvement in the claimed constitutional deprivation and does not impose vicarious liability.

Swarts v. Johnson · filed 1986-01-27

Further, section 1983’s language demands a degree of personal involvement connecting a defendant to the claimed deprivation of a constitutional right, and “in § 1983 actions public officials cannot be held vicariously liable for the wrongdoing of others.”

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a superior merely because a subordinate violated someone’s rights.

Stephen L. Ustrak, Cross-Appellant v. James W. Fairman, Cross-Appellee · filed 1986-03-13

This ought to end the matter, for no doctrine of superiors’ liability is recognized in section 1983 cases.

Section 1983 requires a defendant’s personal participation in the alleged violation and does not impose liability through respondeat superior.

Lamb v. Maschner · filed 1986-04-04

Plaintiff has not alleged any personal participation on the named defendants’ parts and the doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to section 1983 actions.

Section 1983 requires a basis for each defendant’s personal liability; respondeat superior alone does not establish liability.

Jensen v. Satran · filed 1986-04-25

Mr. Jensen has not alleged that any of these parties have personally committed any act which injured him. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor solely because of a subordinate's acts.

Dock Brown v. Charles Smith, Guard, West Jefferson Correctional Facility and Warden J.D. White, Individually · filed 1987-04-06

A § 1983 claim cannot be based upon vicarious liability.

Section 1983 does not impose vicarious liability on supervisors for the acts of their subordinates without more.

Ochoa Realty Corp. v. Faria · filed 1987-04-06

Under settled principles of law applicable to § 1983 cases, Qui-nones could not, without more, be vicariously liable for the acts of his subordinates.

Section 1983 does not impose vicarious liability on individuals for the actions of their subordinates.

Pierce v. Paul Davis, Warden Thomas R. Corcoran, Deputy Warden John Doe, Officer Mayor and City Council of Bal · filed 1987-06-08

Individuals are not vicariously liable and cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by virtue of respondeat superior.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a prison supervisor without personal involvement in subordinates’ allegedly unlawful conduct.

Gill v. Mooney · filed 1987-07-16

Absent some personal involvement by Jones in the allegedly unlawful conduct of his subordinates, he cannot be held liable under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not support liability based solely on a respondeat superior theory.

Williams v. Cash · filed 1988-02-04

It is axiomatic that § 1983 “will not support a claim based on a respondeat superior theory of liability.”

Section 1983 does not impose supervisory liability based solely on a supervisor’s awareness of alleged misconduct and failure to take appropriate action.

Patsy Carolyn POE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnie HAYDON, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants · filed 1988-07-28

At best, she has merely claimed that the appellants were aware of alleged harassment, but did not take appropriate action. This is insufficient to impose liability on supervisory personnel under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits liability for a public official’s own misconduct, but not vicarious liability for a subordinate’s acts in which the official was not directly involved.

Board of Trustees of U. of Ky. v. Hayse · filed 1989-11-09

Officials have no vicarious liability for acts of subordinates in which they are not directly involved, i.e., bear no personal responsibility. This has no bearing on liability for one’s own personal misconduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor solely because of that relationship; the plaintiff must allege the supervisor’s own act or omission connecting the supervisor to the wrong.

Gosselin v. Michael J. Cunningham, Etc. · filed 1990-09-19

First, Mr. Gosselin failed to make any specific allegations against the named defendant, the warden of the prison. As principles of respondeat superior do not apply in section 1983 cases, failure to make any such specific allegations is treated as a failure to state a claim.

Section 1983 permits liability against a sheriff whose failure to train officers in reliable identification and to account for detainees causes a constitutional violation.

Rivas v. Freeman · filed 1991-09-09

This failure to adequately train his officers regarding reliable identification techniques, along with his failure to properly account for incarcerated suspects, subject Sheriff Freeman to liability under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose supervisory liability through respondeat superior.

Joyce v. Michael Bumgarner B. Miller · filed 1992-05-05

The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to § 1983 actions, Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976), and supervisory liability has not otherwise been shown.