42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations of federal constitutional and statutory rights under color of state law, but not for deprivations of state rights.

Stahl v. Village of Hoffman Estates · filed 1998-05-14

However, section 1983 provides a vehicle for vindicating federal constitutional and statutory rights, not state rights, deprived under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violation of a state criminal procedure rule that does not confer a federal right.

Adewale v. Whalen · filed 1998-08-07

The procedure described in Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.01 is not a federal right actionable under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy only for violations of federal rights, so a claim under a state constitution cannot arise under it.

Reyes v. Wilson Memorial Hospital · filed 1998-09-21

Because a claim under the Ohio Constitution cannot be deemed to arise under § 1983 (a statute which provides a remedy only for violations of federal rights), the Defendants might be eligible for immunity from damages for this claim.

Section 1983 claims based on enforceable federal housing rights cannot be barred by a HUD regulation.

Wilson v. Bucci · filed 1998-10-14

I am stating only that HUD lacks the authority to promulgate regulations for the purpose of affecting section 1983 jurisdiction.

Whether a federal statute creates a right enforceable through § 1983 is a question of whether the plaintiff states a claim, not of subject matter jurisdiction.

Rodriguez v. Debuono · filed 1998-11-16

The issue of whether 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(B) provides an enforceable private right of action pursuant to § 1983, therefore, does not implicate jurisdiction. Rather, it is more aptly viewed as a question of whether the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federally protected rights, not breaches of duties of care arising under tort law.

Parker v. City of Austin · filed 1999-03-04

Section 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the United States Constitution, not for violations of duties of care arising out of tort law.

Section 1983 provides a remedy when officials acting under color of state law violate a separate federal statutory right, including the protection against bankruptcy discrimination in 11 U.S.C. § 525.

McKibben v. Titus County Appraisal District (In Re McKibben) · filed 1999-04-23

Defendants should look to Johnston v. Harris County Flood Control District, 869 F.2d 1565 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied 493 U.S. 1019, 110 S.Ct. 718, 107 Lawyers’ Ed.2d 738 which explains that where a separate constitutional or statutory right of the United States has been violated then § 1983 affords a remedy to the injured party. That is precisely the situation in this case where the Plaintiffs right not to be fired from her job because she filed a bankruptcy petition has been violated under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not permit a plaintiff to enforce federal highway DBE requirements that confer no specific benefit or service on identifiable individuals.

Indianapolis Minority Contractors Ass'n v. Wiley · filed 1999-08-13

Because we hold that the plaintiffs cannot establish that they are the intended beneficiaries of the statutory and regulatory provisions, we need not reach the second and third prongs of the inquiry, or the issue whether Congress intended to foreclose a remedy under § 1983.

Section 1983 cannot enforce a right supplied only by a regulation when the underlying statute creates no enforceable federal right.

Kissimmee River Valley Sportsmans Ass'n v. City of Lakeland · filed 1999-08-17

The regulation is not, however, merely the “fleshing out” of a right created by the Act. Under the test set forth in Hams, therefore, the statute under which the Association seeks to bring its Section 1983 action does not create an enforceable federal right.

Section 1983 does not permit a hospital to enforce Medicaid disproportionate share adjustments under § 1396r-4 because that provision creates no privately enforceable right.

Children's Seashore House v. Waldman · filed 1999-11-30

We are satisfied that CSH cannot predicate its claim on these provisions. For this reason, we will affirm the district court's dismissal of CSH's section 1983 statutory claim and its finding that CSH cannot successfully maintain an action to enforce the Medicaid Act with respect to DSH adjustments.

Section 1983 requires a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; a state constitutional violation cannot support a claim.

ATC Partnership v. Town of Windham · filed 1999-12-14

Therefore, the plaintiffs claim of a violation of its state constitutional right to substantive due process, as a matter of law, cannot form the basis for its suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action only for violations of federal constitutional or statutory law.

Brooks v. Sauceda · filed 2000-01-05

To the extent that plaintiff attempts to bring these claims under Section 1983, they also fail. Section 1983 only provides a cause of action for violations of federal constitutional or statutory law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege the deprivation, under color of law, of a right secured by federal law.

Collier v. Nelson · filed 2000-01-07

In order to allege a valid § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must assert the deprivation, under color of law, of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by federal law.

Section 1983 permits claims for violations of federally secured rights, but not rights secured solely by a state constitution.

Craig v. Cohn · filed 2000-01-07

But in § 1983 cases, courts may consider only alleged deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a protected right; mere interference with free association is insufficient.

LaFlamme v. Essex Junction School District · filed 2000-01-21

In other words, we believe that more than a mere interference with one’s association with others — the core injury wrought by defamation — is required to support a finding of denial of due process. As we stated in Levinsky, the argument that there need not be actual deprivation in order to find a § 1983 violation “ignores the language of the enabling statute, which mandates liability for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.’” Levinsky, 151 Vt. at 196, 559 A.2d at 1085 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 provides a remedy for federal statutory rights, but FERPA creates no individual rights enforceable through it.

Doe v. Gonzaga University · filed 2000-01-31

We hold FERPA does not create individual rights privately enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim based on a federal statute only if that statute creates enforceable federal rights; § 1452b and the HUD Handbook create no such rights.

Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia · filed 1984-03-06

The threshold question under both the implied rights analysis and the § 1983 statutory analysis is whether the statute at issue creates federal rights in favor of the plaintiff. The preceeding discussion in the context of plaintiff’s theory of an implied right of action regarding the right-creating effect of § 1452b and the Handbook is dis-positive of plaintiff’s § 1983 statutory claim as well. Neither the language of the statute nor the Handbook creates federal rights capable of enforcement through a § 1983 private action.

Section 1983 provides relief for violations of the United States Constitution or federal law, but not for violations of a state constitution alone.

Kelly v. Ogata · filed 2000-04-04

Section 1983 only provides for relief for state action that violates the United States Constitution or Federal law, as opposed to state constitutions.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Ellis v. City of Garland · filed 2000-04-12

A violation of state law is not cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides relief only for violations of federal rights.

Wax 'n Works v. City of St. Paul · filed 2000-05-26

It is well settled, however, that § 1983 may be an avenue for relief only when a plaintiff asserts that violations of federal rights have occurred.

Section 1983 provides a right of action to enforce rights under Medicaid’s § 1396a when the requirements for an enforceable federal right are met.

Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries, Inc. v. Hood · filed 2000-06-14

Therefore, with all elements of the analysis met, it is concluded that plaintiffs have a right of action under section 1983 for violations of section 1396a.

Section 1983 redress requires a violation of a federal right; a violation of federal law alone is insufficient.

Occean v. Kearney · filed 2000-08-09

A plaintiff seeking Section 1983 redress must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely a federal law.

Section 1983 does not allow Medicaid providers to enforce the unnecessary-utilization requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) because it creates no enforceable right for them.

Prestera Center for Mental Health Services, Inc. v. Lawton · filed 2000-09-12

Accordingly, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES Section 30(A) creates no rights enforceable under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires deprivation of a federal statutory or constitutional right; alleged fabrication of evidence does not support a claim when it causes no such deprivation.

Hennick v. Bowling · filed 2000-09-14

The Court finds that, in the circumstances presented here, plaintiff has not identified any federal statutory or constitutional right the deprivation of which could give rise to a claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a particular right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law.

United States Environmental Protection Agency Ex Rel. McKeown v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey · filed 2001-03-30

Even if plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim was not preempted by the CAA, CWA and RCRA provisions limiting the scope of citizen suits, ... plaintiffs have not alleged that defendants have deprived them of any particular rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim is granted.

Section 1983 does not enforce a right asserted under a regulation when the regulation creates obligations too far removed from the authorizing statute.

Kissimmee River Valley v. City of Lakeland · filed 2001-05-10

Thus, we hold that the right of equal access that the Plaintiff wishes to enforce under § 1983 is not a federal right so enforceable.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of the Virginia Constitution.

Wilson v. City of Salem · filed 2001-05-24

Violations of the Virginia Constitution are not actionable under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights, but not state constitutional rights.

Strahan v. Frazier · filed 2001-08-01

By its own terms, section 1983 only creates a remedy for federal statutory and constitutional violations — not state constitutional violations.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights, but a violation of a state constitution alone does not state a claim under it.

Furfaro v. City of Seattle · filed 2001-08-02

We agree with the City that Respondents’ claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of rights under the Washington State Constitution fails to assert a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 remedies violations of federal rights; a corrections officer’s violation of his oath of office alone does not state a claim.

Pendleton v. Mills · filed 2001-09-18

An action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a vehicle for remedying the violation of rights created by federal law. ... Accordingly, the portion of the complaint filed by Messrs. Brown and Pendleton based on Corporal Mills’s alleged violation of his oath of office fails to state a claim upon which relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can be granted.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege facts indicating a violation of the plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution or federal statutes.

Darlene Chambers v. Turley · filed 2001-11-01

We agree with the district court that Chambers failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because she did not allege facts indicating a violation of her rights under the Constitution or federal statutes, as required for section 1983 litigation.

Section 1983 does not permit private enforcement of Title VI § 602 disparate impact regulations that impose obligations beyond the statute’s individual rights.

Bonnie L. Ex Rel. Hadsock v. Bush · filed 2001-12-04

As § 602 does not contain any “rights-creating” language and focuses on the agencies rather than individuals, a regulation that creates rights for individuals — such as the disparate impact regulations passed pursuant to § 602 — necessarily imposes distinct obligations beyond the specific content of the statute. Under Harris, such regulations cannot be enforced privately through 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim based solely on the state law tort of malicious prosecution; the plaintiff must assert a federally protected right.

Carter v. Jess · filed 2001-12-18

The other state law claims that Plaintiff asserts as bases for his § 1983 action, however, cannot survive. As to Count 4, malicious prosecution is a state law tort that does not constitute a federally protected right.

Section 1983 does not give Medicaid providers a cause of action to enforce § 1396a(a)(30)(A), which does not confer an individual right on providers.

Walgreen Co. v. Hood · filed 2001-12-20

But § 1983 only provides redress for a plaintiff who asserts a “violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law.” ... As a Medicaid provider, Walgreen does not appear to be an intended beneficiary of Section 30(A). ... We read Evergreen as applying to the entirety of Section 30(A).

Section 1983 remedies violations of federal rights; violations of state or local rights alone are insufficient.

Holloway v. San Reeves · filed 2002-01-24

But a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can remedy only a violation of federal rights, see Gooden, 214 F.3d at 955, and so any violations of rights guaranteed by local or state laws are irrelevant for present purposes.

Section 1983 does not allow Medicaid providers to enforce the Medicaid Act’s single state agency requirement because that requirement gives them no individual right.

Ass'n v. Connell · filed 2002-01-24

On the merits, because we hold that the single state agency requirement does not establish a right that the remaining Plaintiffs can enforce under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we reverse the district court’s summary judgments.

Section 1983 requires an enforceable federal right; a Medicaid recipient cannot use it to enforce the Boren Amendment’s provider reimbursement provisions.

Hall v. Prince George's County · filed 2002-03-14

However, as she is not a health care provider, Wilder does not provide her with a right of action to enforce the provisions of the Boren Amendment. ... Plaintiff has no cause of action under § 1983 as no federal right has been violated.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations of federal constitutional or statutory rights.

Edwards v. Johnson · filed 2002-03-26

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations of federal constitutional or statutory rights.

Section 1983 remedies violations of federal rights; violations of rights guaranteed only by state or local law cannot support a claim.

Davis v. Little Rock School · filed 2002-04-05

We first note that even if the termination of his salary and benefits before arbitration violated whatever rights Davis retained under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, Davis cannot base a due process claim on a violation of this state law (and the District Court dismissed without prejudice his state-law claims after declining to exercise jurisdiction over them). See Holloway v. Reeves, 277 F.3d 1035, 1038 (8th Cir. 2002) (explaining that § 1983 suit can only remedy violations of federal rights, so any violations of rights guaranteed by local or state laws are irrelevant to such a claim).

Section 1983 requires a violation of a federal right; rights arising solely under state law do not support a claim.

McDermott v. Town of Windham · filed 2002-05-31

To the extent that Plaintiff's claims in Count II are based on rights under Maine law, she has failed to state actionable claims under section 1983, and to the extent the claims in Count II are based on violations of federal law they are redundant of Count I. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state statutes or prison regulations alone.

Gaines v. Stenseng · filed 2002-06-07

To the extent Gaines seeks relief for alleged violations of state statutes and prison regulations, however, he has stated no cognizable claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim based on housing quality standards that create no enforceable individual federal right.

Hill v. San Francisco Housing Authority · filed 2002-06-12

For this reason, section 1437d(f)(2) and the implementing regulations identified by plaintiffs do not create a federal right; therefore the statutory/regulatory section 1983 claims fail as a matter of law.

Section 1983 provides a remedy against persons acting under state authority for violations of federal statutory and constitutional rights.

Collins Ex Rel. Collins v. Hamilton · filed 2002-09-30

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action against anyone who, acting pursuant to state authority, violates any “rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws” of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal statutory and constitutional law.

Section 1983 provides relief for violations of federal statutory or constitutional rights, but does not cover violations of state constitutional rights.

Roberts v. Department of Correction · filed 2002-10-15

However, as has oft been noted, the denial of a state constitutional right cannot be addressed by a Section 1983 claim. Section 1983 specifically provides relief only where federal statutoiy or constitutional rights have been denied.

Section 1983 provides a claim to enforce a federally enforceable statutory right against conflicting state law.

Natl Home Equity v. Face · filed 2002-10-16

In the circumstances before us, however, once the district court found that NHEMA had a federally enforceable right under the Parity Act, it correctly determined that NHEMA pre- vailed on that right through a § 1983 claim and therefore was justified in relying on § 1988 for its award of attorneys fees, costs, and expenses.

Section 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federally protected right; violations of contracts or state law alone do not suffice.

Florez v. Johnson · filed 2003-03-28

The district court also properly dismissed Appellant’s allegations concerning the Defendants’ supposed violation of various contractual provisions and state laws, on the ground that § 1983 is reserved for allegations of federally protected rights.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to identify a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law to state a claim.

Brown v. City of Detroit · filed 2003-04-23

More generally, in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must identify a deprivation of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912 because that statute creates no enforceable individual right.

Frison v. Zebro · filed 2003-08-21

Accordingly, because we find nothing in the statutory language, structure, or elsewhere from which it could be conferred that Congress intended to create a private right of action for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912, Frison cannot pursue her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for noncompliance with the prison staffing requirements in Ruiz.

De La Garza v. Stringfellow · filed 2003-09-12

Noncompliance with Ruiz is not actionable under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit for violations of federal rights, but an additional state eviction procedure does not itself create a right enforceable under the section.

Charmaine Hunter v. Underwood · filed 2004-04-01

Section 1983 permits a plaintiff to bring suit only for the violation of federal rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 permits suit only for violations of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Hunter v. Underwood · filed 2004-04-01

Section 1983 permits a plaintiff to bring suit only for the violation of federal rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 permits damages and equitable relief for violations of federal statutory rights.

TIMMY S. v. Stumbo · filed 1981-09-15

On the basis of Maine v. Thiboutot, supra, the plaintiffs have stated a cause of action for damages and equitable relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not enforce a claimed federal right when the plaintiff identifies no federal law creating that right.

Beechwood Restorative Care Center v. Leeds · filed 2004-05-04

Plaintiffs also cite various federal regulations, none of which expressly proscribe “premature” state administrative enforcement proceedings, in an effort to show the federal government’s primary role in the Medicare/Medicaid field, but that simply is not enough to give rise to a right enforceable under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; a state law violation alone is insufficient.

Braderman v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency · filed 1984-12-04

An essential element of a federal civil rights claim is the deprivation of a right conferred by the federal constitution or federal law. ... A state law violation is not sufficient.

Section 1983 provides a remedy only for deprivations of rights secured by federal law, not for every wrong committed under color of state law.

Ohio Inns, Inc. v. Nye · filed 1976-11-10

Section 1983 does not create a remedy for every wrong committed under color of state law. Only deprivations of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States are actionable.

Section 1983 protects rights created by federal law against deprivation under color of state law; state constitutional guarantees alone do not support a claim under it.

Mrazek v. Suffolk County Board Of Elections · filed 1980-07-25

Consequently, our authority to hear this matter is premised exclusively on the alleged contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which secures persons against the deprivation, under color of state law, of their rights and privileges created under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Appellants have demonstrated no violation of federal rights and, under the circumstances of this case, we are without jurisdiction to consider a claim bottomed upon state guarantees.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for state interference with a national bank’s authority under 12 U.S.C. § 85.

First National Bank Of Omaha v. The Marquette National Bank Of Minneapolis · filed 1980-11-25

We, therefore, hold that state interference with the authority of national banks under 12 U.S.C. § 85 does not give rise to a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations of federal constitutional or statutory rights, but does not cover violations of state law alone.

Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City Of Pontiac · filed 1989-10-13

The statute is thus limited to deprivations of federal statutory and constitutional rights. It does not cover official conduct that allegedly violates state law.

Section 1983 remedies deprivations of federal constitutional or statutory rights, not a state law breach of contract alone.

Williams v. Glover · filed 1992-10-02

Section 1983 actions are limited to remedying deprivations of federal constitutional or federal statutory rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At most, Williams has alleged a state law breach-of-contract claim, which does not implicate any federally protected right--even when liberally construed.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim to enforce ELIHPA or § 515 loan provisions because neither confers individual rights.

Owens v. Charleston Housing Authority · filed 2004-06-23

I have already decided that neither ELIHPA nor § 515 confer individual rights enforceable under § 1983, and plaintiffs have pointed to no authority which instructs me to evaluate this requirement differently under MAPA.

Section 1983 provides redress for violations of federal rights, not state constitutional provisions.

Pappas v. City of Lebanon · filed 2004-08-16

And the federal civil rights laws provide redress for violations of only federal rights, not state constitutional provisions.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights by persons acting under color of state law.

Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Watters · filed 2004-08-30

Wachovia’s right based upon incidental powers is not a right cognizable under § 1983. Under § 1983, the violation must redress a violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law. Blessing at 340, 117 S.Ct. 1353. The incidental powers of § 24 Seventh do not establish an unambiguously conferred right to be free from state visitorial authority. It is § 484 which extends the OCC’s exclusive visitorial authority to national bank operating subsidiaries. This section, however, extends authority to the OCC, it does not grant a right to a national bank. The OCC regulatory scheme was “intended primarily for the benefit of the public and the commonwealth, not for the benefit of banks and bank directors.” See In re Franklin Nat. Bank Securities Litigation, 445 F.Supp. 723, 731 (D.C.N.Y.1978) (reviewing the effect of visitation under § 481). Thus, Wachovia’s § 1983 claim must fail.

Section 1983 provides no cause of action for violations of the AAIA or FAAct because those statutes do not confer enforceable individual rights.

Jet 1 Center, Inc. v. City of Naples Airport Authority (In Re Jet 1 Center, Inc.) · filed 2005-02-15

In light of this holding, the Arrow Airways case precludes finding a Section 1983 cause of action for violation of the AAIA, and the same logic would apply to the FAAct.

Section 1983 provides relief for violations of federal rights, not state rights.

Edwards v. County of San Diego · filed 2005-03-03

A reference to the California Constitution would be wholly superfluous to the § 1983 claim, because § 1983 only allows relief for violations of federal, rather than state, rights.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Cohn v. New Paltz Central School District · filed 2005-03-30

But a violation of state law is not a recognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a violation of federal law; a violation of state law alone cannot support a claim.

Thomas v. Gladstone · filed 2005-05-11

A § 1983 claim may not be based solely on a violation of State law.

Section 1983 does not provide national banks a remedy for alleged violations of the National Bank Act because the Act creates no individual rights for them.

Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Burke · filed 2005-07-11

When viewed as a whole and in light of its history, it is plain that the NBA addresses the allocation of federal versus state regulatory power and does not provide national banks with rights enforceable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not create substantive rights or provide a claim for common law wrongful death alone; the defendant’s conduct must violate a right secured by federal law.

O'NEAL v. DeKalb County, Ga. · filed 1987-06-15

Section 1983, however, does not itself create substantive rights. Rather, the court must look to determine whether plaintiffs have been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and laws.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of a federal statutory right only if the underlying statute creates a substantive right.

Starr v. Price · filed 2005-09-08

This statute provides a remedy for deprivations of rights created by federal law, not for violations of federal law. If a federal law creates no substantive right, then a violation of that law does not give rise to a section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 can enforce rights under the Medicaid Act’s statewide coverage and freedom of choice provisions.

Kapable Kids Learning Center, Inc. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services · filed 2005-09-15

Since there is a split in the jurisdictions, the Court is persuaded that, in light of the Eighth Circuit’s continued position in Pediatric Specialty, that the Eighth Circuit would agree with those courts finding an enforceable right under provisions (1) and (23) in contrast to those courts such as Sanchez.

Section 1983 claims must be based on alleged violations of federal statutory or constitutional rights, not state law.

St. George v. Mak · filed 1993-12-29

The court also dismissed all claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on state law, holding that all claims under that provision must be based on alleged violations of federal statutory and constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of the Interstate Corrections Compact because they are not violations of federal law.

Smith v. Cummings · filed 2006-04-24

But we agree with the district court’s conclusion that violations of the ICC are not violations of federal law, and therefore are not actionable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a federal regulation alone to create an enforceable right.

Johnson v. Detroit · filed 2006-05-03

In light of the Caswell decision, the rule expressed in Loschiavo, that a federal regulation alone may create a right enforceable through § 1983, is no longer viable.

Federal regulations alone cannot create rights enforceable under § 1983.

Johnson v. City of Detroit and City of Detroit Housing Commission · filed 2006-05-03

In light of the Caswell decision, the rale expressed in Loschiavo, that a federal regulation alone may create a right enforceable through § 1983, is no longer viable.

Section 1983 does not provide a private action to enforce Medicaid's reasonable-standards provision because that provision does not create an individually enforceable right.

Lankford v. Sherman · filed 2006-06-22

As the statute sets forth only broad, general goals, which the states have broad discretion to implement, this court holds that plaintiffs do not have a private right of action to enforce Medicaid's reasonable-standards provision under section 1983.

Section 1983 provides relief for state actors’ violations of federal rights, but filing a suit based on state law does not itself supply a federal right.

Batagiannis v. West Lafayette Community School Corporation · filed 2006-07-24

As for her contention that the board retaliated against her because she filed a suit in state court: why is that actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983? That statute provides relief for state actors’ violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States, but a suit in state court and resting on state law is neither.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of federal rights, not for a claim that a state prison regulation lacks authorization under state law.

Ellibee v. Simmons · filed 2006-10-19

Section 1983 provides a remedy only when the plaintiff is deprived of a right or privilege under federal law; it is not a vehicle for challenging whether a state prison regulation is authorized under state law.

Section 1983 requires a violation of federal law; a violation of state bail procedures alone is insufficient.

Galen v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2006-11-06

Nor do we accept Galen’s argument that procedural violations of California bail law suffice to establish a deprivation of a federal right. Section 1983 requires Galen to demonstrate a violation of federal law, not state law.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a federally protected right under color of state law; a violation of a state constitution alone does not establish a claim.

Soderstrand v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges · filed 2006-11-22

If this claim purports to allege a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution through § 1983, then such a claim is hereby DISMISSED because to establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a deprivation of a federally protected right under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim based solely on a violation of state law without an implicated federal right.

Penoyer v. Briggs · filed 2006-11-24

To the extent that Penoyer’s arguments in this regard did not otherwise implicate a federal right, they were not proper issues for a § 1983 complaint.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Neuman, James v. McCoy, Mike · filed 2006-12-22

As for Neuman’s first point, the district court correctly found that his claims could succeed only if Neuman’s allegations revealed that the defendants’ actions (or inaction) deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, as § 1983 requires.

Section 1983 does not support a challenge to an unapproved state plan before agency action infringes a federal right.

Dorak v. Shapp · filed 1975-11-14

A cause of action arises and is stated before the court only upon actual administrative agency action pursuant to statutory authority wherein “federal rights” are infringed, whether it be the exercise of the power of eminent domain or the federal approval of a state plan and distribution of federal funds. At that time an aggrieved person has a right to sue in district court founded directly upon a federal law within the meaning of the language in § 1983 of the Civil Rights statute and the jurisdictional section 1343(4), and the district court is clearly empowered to review the agency’s adherence to its own procedural requirements and criteria for eligibility for federal assistance in approving state plans submitted thereunder.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show both an enforceable federal right and a violation of that right.

Level 3 Communications, L.L.C. v. City Of St. Louis, Missouri · filed 2007-02-05

However, Arkansas Medical Society makes clear that the claim must involve not only an enforceable right, but also a violation of that right.

Section 1983 covers deprivations of federally secured rights, not claims based solely on local ordinances or contracts.

Goros v. County of Cook and Michael Sheahan, as Sheriff of Cook County · filed 2007-06-11

The “federal law” that plaintiffs invoke is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but that statute covers only “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States.

Section 1983 provides no remedy for violations of the Federal Communications Act or the cited FCC antenna regulations because they do not create an individual right intended to benefit the claimant.

Koor Communications, Inc. v. City of Lebanon · filed 2007-06-22

Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to establish a right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is not entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Section 1983 provides a civil remedy for deprivations of rights secured by federal law, not state constitutional rights.

Bourne v. Town of Madison · filed 2007-06-29

Because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only affords a civil remedy for the deprivation of rights secured under federal law, ... Bourne is presumably asking the court to imply a civil remedy here.

Section 1983 permits beneficiaries to enforce the federal right created by the Medicaid special needs trust provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A).

Lewis Ex Rel. Young v. Rendell · filed 2007-08-03

Thus, the Court concludes that § 1396p(d)(4)(A) creates a federal right enforceable under § 1983, and that this is a right plaintiffs seek to enforce in this case.

Section 1983 provides a claim only for violations of rights secured by the United States Constitution or federal law.

Goings v. Chickasaw County, IA · filed 2007-12-06

Violations of state constitutional rights are not “violation[s] of right[s] secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 does not make a private contract right actionable by itself.

Mentor, Inc. v. Lam · filed 2008-01-29

Mere private property rights, such as contract rights, do not fall within the ambit of § 1983; "otherwise every artful counsel could dress up his dog bite case" as within § 1983. See id. at 750.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a state actor infringed a right under the Constitution or federal law; a state-law violation alone is insufficient.

Amir-Sharif v. Dist Atty Off Dallas · filed 2008-06-20

To raise a viable § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that a state actor infringed his rights under “the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or a federal statute.

Vierra v. Cochise County · filed 2008-11-26

The district court properly dismissed Vierra’s amended complaint because he failed to allege the violation of any rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution or statutes.

Section 1983 permits private enforcement of the Medicaid Act’s fair-hearing right under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3).

McCartney ex rel. McCartney v. Cansler · filed 2009-03-16

The Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3), upon which plaintiffs rely, confer individual federal rights to due process and a fair hearing, and these rights are enforceable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not make violations of prison executive or general orders actionable without a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Palomo v. Ishizaki · filed 2005-05-18

... violations of these orders are not cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 covers deprivations of rights secured by federal law when committed under color of state law.

Gage v. Commonwealth Edison Company · filed 1972-11-27

Although Edison argues that only actions involving deprivation of Constitutional rights are cognizable under § 1983, the provision “Constitution and laws” clearly embraces any action involving the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by a law of the United States.

Section 1983 does not protect a right arising only under state law, such as the right to serve as a school board election official.

Mrs. Minnie L. Evans v. Elbert Page, Jr. · filed 1975-05-15

The privilege asserted by Evans of serving as an election official arises under state, not federal, law. ... We do not view Bomar as precedent for extending the protections of the Civil Rights Act to the violations alleged in this case.

Section 1983 supports a claim based on a federal statute only if that statute creates a right, privilege, or immunity within § 1983’s meaning.

Perry v. Housing Authority · filed 1981-11-24

In order for a plaintiff to prevail under a purely statutory-based § 1983 claim, though, the court must determine (1) whether Congress, in enacting a statute and its enforcement scheme, supplanted a private remedy and, (2) whether the statute created “rights, privileges or immunities” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a state actor for violation of a federal statute, including the Equal Pay Act.

Lyon v. Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education · filed 1982-07-30

Because a § 1983 action may be based on the violation of any federal statute, Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 2504, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980), if summary judgment is denied on the EPA claim, it cannot be granted on the § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 requires a personal federal right; a Medicaid provision that only directs states how to determine eligibility does not support a claim.

Bates v. Henneberry · filed 2009-04-30

Section 1896a(a)(17) does not focus on the persons benefited. Instead, like section 1396p(d)(8)(B), the provision generally instructs the states how to determine an applicant's income or resources for Medicaid eligibility. In doing so, it addresses only the state's plan for providing aggregate services. The lack of any reference to the particular person to be benefited precludes a section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal statutory or constitutional rights, but not for violations of state law alone.

Sevin v. Parish of Jefferson · filed 2009-05-14

The purpose of section 1983 is to guarantee federal rights, not to give parties a right to air their state-law grievances in federal court.

Section 1983 provides a claim for violations of federal rights, but violations of state law alone cannot support a claim.

Holder v. Town of Newton, et al. · filed 2009-07-23

Section 1983 provides a right of action for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States, not the States, so the alleged violations of the New Hampshire constitution (or other state law) cannot support Holder's § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 claims must rest on violations of federal statutory or constitutional law; a violation of a state constitution cannot support a claim.

D.A. v. Houston Independent School District · filed 2009-08-14

As Defendants note, because § 1983 claims can only be premised on violations of federal statutory or constitutional law, alleged violations of the Texas constitution cannot be asserted through § 1983.

Section 1983 can enforce a right conferred by a federal statute; a Supremacy Clause preemption claim alone does not establish such a right.

National Home Equity Mortgage Association v. Face · filed 2002-03-08

In the circumstances before us, however, once the district court found that NHEMA had a federally enforceable right under the Parity Act, it correctly determined that NHEMA prevailed on that right through a § 1983 claim and therefore was justified in relying on § 1988 for its award of attorneys fees, costs, and expenses.

Section 1983 requires an enforceable federal right; Medicaid’s third-party liability provisions give health care providers no such right.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2009-11-17

Since section 1396a(a)(25) “does not confer a federal right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 upon health care providers,” plaintiffs do not have a viable federal claim cognizable under Title 42, section 1983 of the United States Code.

Section 1983 requires deprivation of a federal right; a violation of state law alone does not establish a claim.

Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island · filed 2010-01-27

Plaintiffs urge that a violation of state law and the Washington State Constitution constitutes a violation of § 1983. Their claim, however, is under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that claim is based on the alleged deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for rights created solely by state law.

Unger v. City of Mentor · filed 2010-07-21

A state law, like Ohio’s collective bargaining statute, cannot create a federal right, Harrill v. Blount County, 55 F.3d 1123, 1125 (6th Cir. 1995), and therefore cannot underlie Unger’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 permits enforcement of a federal statutory right when Congress unambiguously confers that right; Medicaid’s EPSDT notice provision meets that requirement.

Salazar v. Dc · filed 2010-08-05

Gonzaga requires that, in order to find a federal right enforceable under § 1983, that right must have been “unambiguously” conferred.

Section 1983 provides a means to enforce federal rights; state tort allegations alone do not state a claim under it.

Fontana v. ALPINE COUNTY · filed 2010-09-30

In the First Cause of Action, Plaintiffs merely allege that the Defendants committed torts under state law and do not invoke any federal rights. ... Section 1983 is a vehicle by which Plaintiffs may sue for violation of their constitutional rights. Accordingly, the First Cause of Action is duplicative and fails as a matter of law.

Section 1983 lets Medicaid recipients enforce their statutory right to a fair hearing, with regulations defining the timing of that right.

Shakhnes Ex Rel. Shakhnes v. Eggleston · filed 2010-09-30

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Medicaid recipients have in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3) a right to a fair hearing enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The regulations at 42 C.F.R. 431.244(f) and SMM § 2902.10 define the content of that right.

Section 1983 permits rural health clinics and federally qualified health centers to enforce their Medicaid reimbursement rights under § 1396a(bb).

California Ass'n of Rural Health Clinics v. Maxwell-Jolly · filed 2010-10-18

In sum, plaintiffs properly rely on § 1396a(bb) as the source of the right they seek to enforce by this action; as consistently recognized by several other circuits, said statute affords a private right of action under the test as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Blessing and Gonzaga.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations of federal rights by state actors, but does not cover violations of state constitutional or statutory rights.

Jackson v. Town of Waldoboro · filed 2010-11-22

By its own terms, however, Section 1983 is a federal remedy statute enabling individuals to pursue civil actions to vindicate federal constitutional and statutory rights when they have suffered a deprivation at the hands of a state actor.

Section 1983 provides a civil remedy for the deprivation of federal rights but does not create substantive rights.

VINEYARD INV., LLC v. City of Madison, Miss. · filed 2010-11-23

Section 1983 does not create substantive rights, but rather provides a civil remedy for the deprivation of constitutional or other rights created by federal law.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federally protected rights, not violations of state law alone.

Grady v. Baker · filed 2010-12-09

Section 1983 is not meant to replace state tort law, it is only meant to provide a remedy for violations of federally protected rights.

Section 1983 requires a violation of a federal right; a violation of state law alone is insufficient.

Weiss v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF SAG HARBOR · filed 2011-01-24

However, even assuming arguendo that plaintiff is correct that the appointment of a Village Justice violates New York State law, the Court nevertheless finds that plaintiff has not alleged a federal constitutional violation for which relief can be granted under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a plaintiff to enforce rights created by the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Deal · filed 2011-06-27

Thus, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., creates a right enforceable under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution and federal laws under color of state law.

SAM M. EX REL. ELLIOTT v. Chafee · filed 2011-07-20

Plaintiffs cause of action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 “provides a remedy for deprivations of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States when that deprivation takes place ‘under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.’ ”

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for conduct that does not violate a secured federal right, and adherence to a state regulation alone cannot support one.

Grady v. Corsini · filed 2011-07-26

Second, Grady has no valid complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983 because the action complained of did not violate his secured federal right. The Department’s adherence to a state regulation cannot serve as the basis for a §1983 claim.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal law, not state or local law.

Perry v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2011-08-11

―[B]y its terms, [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal, not state or local, law.‖ McMullen v. Maple Shade Twp., 643 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2011). Hence, such claims are not cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim based on a federal statute only when that statute confers an individual enforceable right.

Medevac MidAtlantic, LLC v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan · filed 2011-08-31

Accordingly, the Court finds that Medevac has not stated a § 1983 claim because neither of the statutory provisions it seeks to enforce confers on providers individual enforceable rights to timely payment.

Section 1983 provides no remedy for violations of rights under state law.

Steinbock v. Ferry County Public Utility District No. 1 · filed 2011-10-25

They also alleged that the conduct violated state law and the state constitution, but 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides no remedy for violation of rights under state law.

Section 1983 provides a federal remedy for deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

United States v. South Carolina · filed 2011-12-22

Here, it is clear from the plain language of the constitutional and statutory provisions at issue that the private plaintiffs have asserted federal rights in which § 1983 provides a remedy. ... The Court finds that the private plaintiffs have asserted sufficient allegations to state a claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for the deprivation of rights secured only by a state constitution.

Phelan v. Norville · filed 2012-02-10

State constitutions do not provide a basis for a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 allows hospital and beneficiary plaintiffs to enforce the procedural rights conferred by 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13)(A).

Dartmouth-Hitchcock v. NHDHHS · filed 2012-03-02

The court contrasted the attributes of Section (13)(A) with those of Section (30)(A) to make the point that Section (30)(A), unlike Section (13)(A), did not afford a private right of action under § 1983. ... Likewise, applying the Gonzaga factors, I find that the hospital and beneficiary plaintiffs may, consistent with Congressional intent, assert private causes of action seeking enforcement of the procedural rights afforded them under Section (13) (A) .

Section 1983 does not provide a claim based on a HIPAA violation.

Huling v. City of Los Banos · filed 2012-04-19

Second, an alleged HIPAA violation cannot form the basis for a 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim to enforce rights under the FHA, ADA, or Rehabilitation Act because those statutes have comprehensive remedies.

Sinisgallo v. Town of Islip Housing Authority · filed 2012-05-23

Furthermore, because the FHA, ADA and the Rehabilitation Act all contain comprehensive remedial schemes, the Court agrees with those courts that have held that, under the provisions of the statutes at issue in this case, a plaintiff cannot assert claims under Section 1983 for the deprivation of rights guaranteed by the FHA, ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.

Section 1983 requires allegations that a state actor deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Muthukumar v. Kiel · filed 2012-05-30

Finally, the Section 1983 claim requires allegations that state actors deprived a plaintiff of federal rights. ... Muthukumar has not alleged a violation of any constitutional provision, and the only federal statutory rights he has invoked are Title VI and Title VII. The district court was right to dismiss this claim.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for violations of federal rights, not rights arising solely under state law.

Snider International Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights · filed 2012-11-29

But the Maryland Constitution cannot be the source of substantive rights enforceable under § 1983 because that statute creates a cause of action only for violations of federal rights.

Section 1983 cannot be used to enforce FMLA rights when the FMLA’s remedial scheme shows Congress intended to exclude other remedies.

Diaz v. Michigan Dep't of Corrections · filed 2013-01-07

It is apparent from the plain language of the FMLA remedial provisions that Congress intended to exclude other remedies. The FMLA therefore precludes resort to § 1983.

Section 1983 permits enforcement of a federal statute only when Congress unambiguously confers a right on the plaintiff; the LRRA’s preemption provision confers no such right on risk retention groups.

Alliance of Nonprofits for Ins v. Barratt · filed 2013-04-08

However, because the LRRA’s preemption provision does not unambiguously confer a right to be free from state law that can be enforced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we vacate the fee award.

Section 1983 does not provide a private action to enforce § 667 because that provision creates no individual federal right.

De La Cruz v. Irizarry · filed 2013-04-12

Therefore, no private right of action is available to Plaintiffs to enforce § 667 by way of § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for deprivations of federal rights, but not for violations of a state constitution.

Kole v. Village of Norridge · filed 2013-04-19

To the extent Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged violations of the Illinois Constitution, Plaintiffs have not identified any authority that would allow such a claim. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action only for deprivations of rights “‘secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 132, 114 S.Ct. 2068, 129 L.Ed.2d 93 (1994) (emphasis added).

Section 1983 provides relief only for violations of federal statutory or constitutional rights.

Hampton v. Andy Brown · filed 2013-05-21

His reliance on Louisiana law prohibiting smoking in prisons is likewise unavailing, as § 1983 relief is available only for violations of federal statutory or constitutional rights.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a federal right; a violation of state law alone does not suffice.

Aruanno v. Green · filed 2013-05-30

“The Supreme Court has set forth the two essential elements of a § 1983 action: „(1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.‟” Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981)). Aruanno‟s reliance on state laws and statutes is thus misplaced.

Section 1983 provides relief for violations of federal rights, not violations of state law alone.

Lindsey v. Matayoshi · filed 2013-06-19

Alleging violations of the state constitution, regulations, administrative rules, or other state law is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides no remedy when the underlying federal statute does not confer a right on the plaintiff.

Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Port Authority · filed 2013-09-13

Consequently, the Association has no federal right to invoke and thus cannot avail itself of section 1983.

Section 1983 requires an enforceable federal right; ERISA pre-emption does not support a claim by plaintiffs who are not intended beneficiaries of that provision.

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. Cuomo · filed 2013-09-25

There is no basis to find that plaintiffs are intended beneficiaries of ERISA’s pre-emption clause such that they have “rights” which may be vindicated via section 1983 in the context of the instant case.

Section 1983 requires the deprivation of a federal right; a violation of a state constitution alone cannot support a claim.

Armstrong v. Asselin · filed 2013-11-01

Since Armstrong’s § 1983 civil rights claim must rely on the deprivation of any rights “secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States, violation of the Alaska constitution alone does not establish a basis for a § 1983 lawsuit.

Section 1983 requires a violation of federal law; a violation of state law alone does not support a claim.

Johannes v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2014-03-17

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johannes’s claims based on alleged violations of state law. See Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Section 1983 requires [the plaintiff] to demonstrate a violation of federal law, not state law.”).

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a right secured by federal law.

Roberson v. McDonald Transit Associates, Inc. · filed 2014-06-20

Therefore, Roberson has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether he was deprived of a right secured by federal law, a required element of a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Baker v. Schwarb · filed 2014-08-19

Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendants violated Michigan law by seizing their weapons is irrelevant for § 1983 purposes.

Section 1983 cannot remedy the violation of a right created solely by state law; the plaintiff must show that a federal right was impaired.

Young v. Larimer County Sheriff's Office · filed 2014-09-11

Thus, notwithstanding the MMA, Young cannot seek relief under section 1983 for destruction of mariJuana plants because that destruction did not impair a federal right, Therefore, the trial court properly entered summary judgment on Young's section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 cannot enforce a claimed federal right absent from the statutes and regulations on which the plaintiff relies.

Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc v. Les Range · filed 2014-11-26

The problem with Southern Migrant’s argument is that the right it seeks to enforce is not included within the text of the statutes and regulations that Southern Migrant relies upon.

Section 1983 permits damages claims for deprivation of rights secured by federal law, but the complaint must allege such a deprivation.

Matter of Durham v. Berlin · filed 2015-04-08

The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the respondent/defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the fourth cause of action, which sought to recover damages pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 for the deprivation of rights secured by federal law. The petition/complaint failed to allege that the OTDA’s action in adjusting the standard utility allowances violated any federal right (see Rancho Palos Verdes v Abrams, 544 US 113, 119-120 [2005]; Gonzaga Univ. v Doe, 536 US 273, 282-283 [2002]).

Section 1983 provides a cause of action only for violations of enforceable federal rights; the Medicaid provisions at issue did not support a claim for deducting guardianship fees.

Backer Ex Rel. Freedman v. Shah · filed 2015-06-03

Appellant therefore has not stated a Section 1983 claim based on either Section 1396a(q)(19) or 1396a(q)(1)(A).

Section 1983 remedies violations of federal rights; a state statute’s procedural requirements do not necessarily define the process required by the Constitution.

Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board · filed 2015-06-16

But while § 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights, the amount and kind of process due to a licensee under the Constitution is not necessarily equivalent to the process to which a state statute entitles him as a matter of state law.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for violations of federal rights under color of state law, but not for violations of state constitutional rights.

Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University · filed 2015-09-16

Because these are state constitutional rights, they are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which by its terms is limited to federal rights.

Section 1983 enforces rights arising under federal law.

Young v. Red Clay Consolidated School District · filed 2015-10-07

Consequently, the content of the violations that the plaintiffs have alleged under Section 1983 must flow from federal law.

Section 1983 does not make a state administrative plan a source of enforceable federal rights merely because a HUD regulation requires compliance with the plan.

Luvert v. Chicago Housing Authority · filed 2015-11-06

Nor can Luvert bootstrap that Plan into serving as the source of federal rights actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ... by pointing; to Reg. 54(c) as requiring compliance with a PHA’s administrative plan (see L. Mem. 18).

Section 1983 permits enforcement of a federal statute only when it creates an individual right for identifiable people.

McCready v. Jesse White, Secretary of State of Illinois · filed 2005-08-02

Yet § 1983 provides a remedy only for the violation of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a remedy only when the plaintiff has an enforceable federal right.

Town of Portsmouth v. Lewis · filed 2016-02-10

The Town also suggests that a right of action lies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), or nonstatutory review, see R.I. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt. v. United States, 304 F.3d 31, 41-42 (1st Cir. 2002). But these avenues involve remedies, not rights, and they depend upon the existence of an enforceable federal right in the first instance, which does not exist here.

Section 1983 allows individuals to enforce federal statutes that confer individual rights, but not provisions that merely set standards for state funding.

Davis v. Shah · filed 2016-03-24

Federal laws that merely set standards on the basis of which states may receive federal funding, for example, but that do not create specific rights for individuals, are not enforceable by a civil action under § 1983.