42 U.S.C. § 1983

Judges and court commissioners are immune from Section 1983 liability for actions taken in the performance of their judicial functions.

Borowski v. Maule · filed 2021-07-28

Defendants are immune from suit for actions taken in the performance of their judicial functions, and therefore, the Court is obliged to dismiss this action.

Judges are immune from Section 1983 damages claims arising from decisions made in their judicial capacity.

WEST v. ALI · filed 2021-07-28

Here, Plaintiff’s claims arise from decisions that Judge Ali made in his capacity as a judge. Plaintiff’s claims, therefore, are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Section 1983 limits injunctive relief against judges for acts taken in their judicial capacity, and judicial immunity protects judges from damages claims arising from such acts.

Zietek v. Pinnacle Nursing & Rehab Center · filed 2021-07-28

In addition, as amended in 1996, § 1983 provides that “in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated, or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Such rulings and actions were within the scope of Justice Johnson’s judicial capacity and jurisdiction. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Justice Johnson under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for decisions made in their judicial capacity.

Edmonson v. Biskupic · filed 2021-07-30

Judge Biskupic is immune from suit, however. While Plaintiff may disagree with Judge Biskupic, his decision was unquestionably made within the scope of his judicial capacity. Therefore, he is absolutely immune from suit.

Section 1983 does not impose personal liability on a judge for actions taken in the performance of her official duties.

Mangir v. Walsh · filed 2021-07-30

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart who, on June 24, 2021, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed with prejudice because Judge Walsh has absolute immunity from personal liability for actions taken in the performance of her official duties. (Dkt. No. 8, at 2-3). ... Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

Section 1983 damages claims against a judge are barred by judicial immunity when the challenged case reassignment is a judicial act, even if the judge allegedly failed to follow a state court rule.

Madison v. 36th District Court · filed 2021-08-03

Based on the case law, Judge Blount was entitled to judicial immunity because she performed acts that were judicial in function.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a judge for judicial rulings made within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Negethon v. Nuss · filed 2021-08-09

But Judge Nuss is absolutely immune from suit under §1983.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from rulings on motions in their court.

Kandov v. Taylor · filed 2021-08-12

I reject that argument because I can’t think of anything more judicial than a judge ruling on motion papers submitted in her court.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity when the challenged acts were taken in their judicial capacity.

PALMER v. PHA · filed 2021-08-17

Palmer’s claims against Judges Simmons and Patrick are barred by absolute judicial immunity because it is apparent that the claims against the judges are based on acts they took in their official capacities while presiding over Palmer’s eviction proceeding.

Judges are immune from § 1983 claims arising from rulings made within their judicial capacity and jurisdiction.

Hirsch v. Quinones · filed 2021-08-23

Plaintiff’s claims against Justice Quinones arise out of the justice’s rulings in Plaintiff’s divorce proceedings. Such rulings and actions were within the scope of Justice Quinones’s judicial capacity and jurisdiction. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Justice Quinones under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state judge for acts within the judge’s jurisdiction and judicial function.

Madlock v. State of Tennessee Thirtieth Judicial Court Memphis, Ten 38103 Division 2 · filed 2021-08-24

Because (1) presiding over criminal proceedings falls under a state judge’s jurisdiction, and (2) Judge Carter was acting within the scope of his judicial function during Plaintiff’s state case, Judge Carter is entitled to judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against a judge for judicial acts.

Ilaw v. Koh · filed 2021-08-25

The district court properly dismissed Ilaw’s action as barred by judicial immunity.

A Section 1983 action against a state court judge may be dismissed on Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity grounds.

Ezor v. Duffy-Lewis · filed 2021-08-25

The district court properly dismissed Ezor’s action on the basis of Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity.

Judges are not immune from § 1983 claims seeking prospective relief.

Wereko v. Haracz · filed 2021-08-26

Indeed, judges are not immune from claims for prospective relief.

Section 1983 claims against a judge are barred by judicial immunity for judicial acts within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Partain v. Judge Alex Gabert · filed 2021-08-26

Although Partain’s first amended petition alleged sixteen causes of action, only two specific claims were directed toward Judge Gabert: (1) an alleged violation of Partain’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (2) a claim of bank fraud or bribery, also under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... There are only two circumstances when judicial immunity can be overcome: (1) when the judge’s actions were non-judicial in nature or (2) when the actions were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. ... Because Judge Gabert’s act of rendering judgment in a civil case was judicial in nature and within his jurisdiction in the context of judicial immunity jurisprudence, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Judge Gabert’s plea to the jurisdiction.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against judges for judicial acts unless they acted outside their judicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

HONE v. LYNCH-FORD · filed 2021-08-27

Under the judicial immunity doctrine, “judges are immune from suit under section 1983 for monetary damages arising from their judicial acts.” ... Here, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges nothing showing that Defendants’ actions were nonjudicial or outside their jurisdiction.

Judges are absolutely immune from damages under § 1983 for acts in their judicial capacities unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Scott v. Ramirez · filed 2021-08-27

Because Plaintiff has not made this showing, Judge Ramirez is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Administrative law judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims arising from orders they issue in their judicial role.

(PC) Driver v. Gibson · filed 2021-08-30

Plaintiff sues Judge Hoover and Judge Gibson over their orders permitting him to be forcibly medicated. Issuance of orders is clearly a judicial function. Judge Hoover and Judge Gibson are thus immune and Plaintiff’s claims for damages against them are barred.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judge for acts in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Abing v. Evers · filed 2021-08-30

In addition to common law, § 1983 further limits the circumstances under which judges may be subject to suit: “[I]n any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” ... And Plaintiffs have not alleged that the Judge Defendants violated any declaratory decree. ... The Judge Defendants are therefore entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims arising from judicial acts unless they act outside their judicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Halliburton v. Gay · filed 2021-08-30

Fourth, even if the court has jurisdiction, the plaintiff has standing, and the complaint asserts a plausible claim under Section 1983, Judge Gay is nonetheless entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

A judge has immunity from a Section 1983 suit for injunctive relief based on acts taken in a judicial capacity.

Rod Anthony Huff v. United States · filed 2021-08-31

Moreover, Ronald Owen Kaye, the only individual named by Plaintiff, is a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge who has judicial immunity from suit for injunctive relief for acts taken in a judicial capacity.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer for judicial acts unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Johnson v. State of Idaho · filed 2021-09-01

Judicial officers are also entitled to absolute immunity from claims for injunctive relief “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In other words, if declaratory relief in an action is available, absolute judicial immunity bars any claims for injunctive relief in that action.

A judge is immune from § 1983 damages claims for acts taken in a judicial capacity, including decisions at a bond hearing.

Rose v. Kitts II · filed 2021-09-01

First, Rose may not sue the judge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages for acts taken in a judicial capacity. A judge has absolute immunity for any actions done in the course of a judicial proceeding.

Judges have absolute judicial immunity from Section 1983 claims based on judicial acts within their jurisdiction.

Friend v. Bryan · filed 2021-09-17

On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff initiated this matter with a proposed pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. ... The three proposed Defendants all have absolute judicial immunity from the relief Plaintiff seeks.

A judge remains immune from a § 1983 suit for judicial acts after recusal when the court retained subject matter jurisdiction.

Goodley v. Greene · filed 2021-09-17

Here, the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court retained jurisdiction throughout the pendency of the probate matter, and because jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in an individual judge, Defendant did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. ... Ultimately, it is clear that Defendant’s acts were done within his judicial capacity, and he did not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Thus, even if Defendant were to have somehow acted erroneously, maliciously, or in excess of his authority, judicial immunity still applies.

Judges are absolutely immune from damages claims under § 1983 for judicial acts unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Jimenez v. Newell · filed 2021-09-20

Judges are absolutely immune from suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for damages for their judicial acts except when they are taken “in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”

A § 1983 claim against a circuit court judge cannot proceed when the judge is protected by absolute judicial immunity.

Nestor v. Antolini · filed 2021-09-22

The Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendant Shaffer, as a Circuit Court judge, is protected from suit by absolute judicial immunity and Plaintiffs’ claims against him cannot proceed [Id. at 40-41]. ... Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the Omnibus R&R [Dkt. No. 43].

State court judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for actions performed in their judicial capacity.

Thornton v. Moorman · filed 2021-09-22

State court judges are absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for actions performed in their judicial capacity.

A judge is immune from a Section 1983 claim based on judicial acts performed within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Sharif v. Mackoff · filed 2021-09-24

All of Sharif’s claims are therefore barred by judicial immunity. See Faulkner, 2018 WL 11181980, at *17 (finding claims under Section 1983 and RICO barred by judicial immunity).

Section 1983 claims against court clerks are barred by judicial immunity when the challenged acts are judicial in nature and taken at a judicial officer’s direction.

Tessema v. Chief of Clerk of the New York City Probate Court · filed 2021-09-27

The Court construes Plaintiff’s claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Because Sanabria’s acts are judicial in nature and taken at the direction of a judicial officer, Plaintiff’s claims brought against this defendant are dismissed under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a judge for judicial acts performed during a criminal trial.

Cohran v. Mahoney · filed 2021-09-29

In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S, 547 (1967), the United States Supreme Court granted certiorart to consider whether a judge was liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an unconstitutional conviction. ... Here, Cochran seeks to hold Judge Mahoney liable for conduct undertaken during Cochran’s criminal trial. Such claims are not permissible.

Judges are absolutely immune from individual-capacity damages claims under Section 1983 for judicial acts within their jurisdiction.

Brown v. Hamilton County, Ohio/Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office · filed 2021-09-29

Plaintiff’s objections—to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Judge Dinkelacker is entitled to absolute immunity from suit on Plaintiff’s claims for damages against him individually under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—are, accordingly, OVERRULED.

Section 1983 permits injunctive relief against a judge acting in a judicial capacity only if a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

MALHAN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2021-09-30

Judicial immunity has also been extended to claims seeking injunctive relief against judges acting in their official capacity. Richardson v. Wilkinsburg Police Dep’t, No. 16-0129, 2016 WL 4141084, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2016) (citing the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)). To overcome judicial immunity with respect to injunctive relief, a litigant must allege that a declaratory decree was violated by the judge, or that declaratory relief was unavailable. Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 304 (3d Cir. 2006). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that a declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief was unavailable. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claims against the Judicial Defendants are barred for both damages and injunctive relief.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity when the challenged acts fall within their judicial responsibilities.

Almonte v. Karth · filed 2021-10-01

Judges are absolutely immune from suit for damages for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities. ... Plaintiff’s allegations against the undersigned arise from actions the Court took in the scope of its judicial responsibilities, and the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity therefore bars Plaintiff’s claims.

Judges are immune from Section 1983 damages claims for actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities.

McMurray v. Stolz · filed 2021-10-01

The Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Justices Stolz and Ward under the doctrine of judicial immunity. Under this doctrine, judges are absolutely immune from civil suit for money damages for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities.

Section 1983 generally bars injunctive relief against a judge for acts in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Brik v. DeLizzo · filed 2021-10-06

Moreover, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 extends judicial immunity to most actions seeking prospective injunctive relief, and provides that “in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” § 309(c), Pub. L. No. 104-317, 110 Stat. 3847, 3853 (1996) (amending 42 U.S.C. § 1983); see Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 74 (2d Cir. 2004).

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer for acts in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable; this limit applies to federal judges.

WELCH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2021-10-13

In 1996, Congress amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to state that “in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” ... This provision applies to both state and federal judges. ... Here, injunctive relief is not available against Chief Judge Wolfson because Plaintiff has not properly pleaded that she violated any declaratory decree or that declaratory relief is unavailable.

Section 1983 claims against court clerks are barred by absolute judicial immunity when the challenged act is judicial in nature and integral to the judicial process.

Lewis v. Wolfe · filed 2021-10-14

Plaintiff sues Defendant based on her issuing an order, pursuant to Local Rule 45.1, in Plaintiff’s appellate proceeding. This conduct is “judicial in nature and an integral part of the judicial process.” Rodriguez, 116 F.3d at 66. The Court therefore finds that Defendant is entitled to absolute immunity from this lawsuit.

Absolute judicial immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against a judge for writing and issuing an opinion.

Dixon v. Hunt · filed 2021-10-15

Because writing and issuing opinions are judicial functions, absolute judicial immunity applies to bar this claim.

Judicial immunity bars Section 1983 damages claims against administrative law judges for acts within their judicial capacity and jurisdiction.

Waheed v. State of Maryland · filed 2021-10-22

To the extent Waheed seeks to sue Judge Defendants in their individual capacity, those claims must also fail under the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against a judge based on the judge’s issuance of a search warrant.

Jones v. Judge Michael Pearson · filed 2021-10-27

Plaintiff’s claim against Judge Pearson is barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity and must be dismissed.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for acts taken in a judicial capacity within their jurisdiction.

Defoe v. Wise · filed 2021-10-29

Consequently, Defoe’s § 1983 claims against Judge Wise are barred by absolute judicial immunity, and this case is due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Section 1983 does not allow money damages against judges for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

Finnegan v. Welker · filed 2021-10-29

Finnegan has named ... Judge Welker and Judge Hall as defendants, but they cannot be sued for money damages under § 1983 for acts taken in a judicial capacity. ... Determining when it is and is not necessary to hold hearings on matters, issuing protective orders, and granting or denying motions are all well within the jurisdiction of both judges. Therefore, the claims against Judge Welker and Judge Hall must be dismissed.

Judges are immune from damages claims under Section 1983 for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.

Wright v. Tarrant County Judge · filed 2021-11-04

Because the complained-of conduct by each of the defendant judges was judicial in nature and undertaken pursuant to the jurisdiction provided to Judge Gonzalez in the 432nd District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, and to Judge Hardy in the County Criminal Court Number 7, Tarrant County, Texas, these judges are entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory monetary damages.

A judge is absolutely immune from a § 1983 claim arising from judicial actions.

Garcia v. Enzor · filed 2021-11-09

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Rickenbaker relate to his judicial actions, and he is entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a judge for conducting courtroom proceedings within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Brown v. Rothgery · filed 2021-11-22

How a judge conducts proceedings in his courtroom is clearly judicial action. ... Judge Rothgery is, therefore, absolutely immune from damages in this action.

Section 1983 bars prospective injunctive relief against state judges for judicial acts except in limited circumstances.

Shimizu v. Ochiai · filed 2021-11-24

Section 1983 does not allow prospective injunctive relief against state judges for their judicial acts, except in certain circumstances not present here.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity when they arise from rulings made in their judicial role.

Tyler v. Maze · filed 2021-11-24

Here, Tyler seeks to sue the Defendants under § 1983 based upon his disagreement with their legal conclusions that his claims in his post-conviction motions for relief were procedurally barred. Without question, the judicial conduct alleged by Tyler falls squarely within the role of an appellate judge. ... Thus, Tyler’s claims against Defendants are barred by judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a judge for conduct covered by that immunity.

Folsom v. Whitten · filed 2021-11-30

He also does not address the finding that Defendant Erwin, a magistrate judge of this Court, enjoys judicial immunity for the conduct of which Plaintiff complains. Thus, the Court finds no basis to disagree with Judge Green’s finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim against any defendant.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against a judge for judicial acts, including issuing a restraining order in a divorce case.

Farmer v. Upchurch (TV1) · filed 2021-11-30

Accordingly, the Court finds that all of the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Judge Smith are based on judicial functions and are therefore barred by judicial immunity.

A plaintiff seeking to proceed with a § 1983 claim against a judge must plausibly allege an exception to absolute judicial immunity.

De Shazo v. Bieter · filed 2021-12-01

Turning to the present case, to proceed against the magistrate judges, Plaintiffs must include plausible allegations demonstrating that the complained of acts fall within one of the exceptions to absolute judicial immunity.

Judges are immune from Section 1983 claims based on acts in their judicial capacity unless they act in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

CUSTIS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS · filed 2021-12-01

Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 claims that are based on acts or omissions taken in their judicial capacity, so long as they do not act in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

A court clerk who issues a writ pursuant to a court order has absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim because the act is integral to the judicial process.

McDonald v. Citibank N.A. · filed 2021-12-02

The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that issuing a writ pursuant to a court’s order bears an “integral relationship with the judicial process” and entitles Kloek to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 judicial immunity bars retrospective declaratory relief challenging a judge’s completed ruling, while allowing prospective relief for an ongoing violation of federal law.

Kelsey v. Clark · filed 2021-12-03

Where a complaint “alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective,” then declaratory relief is not barred by immunity. ... Plaintiff’s challenge to that ruling is retrospective: he is not seeking to prevent a present, continuing violation of the law.

Section 1983 generally bars injunctive relief against a judge for acts taken in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief is unavailable.

Derrick v. Beale · filed 2021-12-07

In this case, Plaintiff’s challenges to his state criminal proceedings involve the performance of Judge Beale’s judicial duties and he alleges no facts which show that Judge Beale acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction or that a declaratory decree was violated or is unavailable. Judge Beale is thus entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

State-court judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for acts in their judicial capacity unless they act in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Lachey v. State of New Mexico · filed 2021-12-07

“[S]tate court judges are absolutely immune from monetary damages claims for actions taken in their judicial capacity, unless the actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” ... The Court dismisses this case because the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against both Defendants.

Judicial officers are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims arising from acts performed in their judicial capacity.

Hall v. G.M.S. Management Co., Inc. · filed 2021-12-07

Plaintiff purports to sue Defendants Fish, McKenney, Peck, Schafer, Callahan, Carr, Hensal, Teodosio, and Rowland on the basis of rulings they made, or conduct in which they engaged, during the performance of their official judicial functions in the Barberton Municipal Court eviction action or in Hall 2, and as to which they are all absolutely immune from a damages suit.

Judicial immunity does not warrant dismissal of a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint alleges that a judge acted outside his judicial role and without jurisdiction.

Rockett v. Eighmy · filed 2021-12-09

However, here, based on the allegations contained in the pleadings Plaintiff has stated a claim that judicial immunity may not apply and certainly a claim that cannot be resolved by a motion to dismiss.

State-court judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for actions taken in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Mendoza v. Macias · filed 2021-12-10

“[S]tate court judges are absolutely immune from monetary damages claims for actions taken in their judicial capacity, unless the actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” ... The Complaint contains no allegations that the actions of the two judges were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims arising from judges’ acts within their judicial capacity and jurisdiction.

Barone v. The Lawyers Fund for Clients' Protection · filed 2021-12-13

The Court finds that the allegations supporting Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Third Department relate to the actions taken by the Justices within the scope of their judicial capacity within their jurisdiction—as judges presiding over Plaintiff’s appeal. Therefore, Defendant Third Department is entitled to absolute judicial immunity; and accordingly, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against it.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for acts taken in their judicial capacity.

Clark v. Janny · filed 2021-12-13

Because a judge is generally immune from a civil action for damages related to his or her judicial activities, even if Ms. Clark could plead the requisite elements of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (which her Complaint does not), any claim for monetary relief still would not pierce judicial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity when the challenged acts are judicial functions performed within their subject matter jurisdiction.

Bishay v. Ricciuti · filed 2021-12-15

Each of the judges sued here were performing an essential judicial function, exercising the judicial authority vested in them with jurisdiction over the subject matter, such that they are entitled to absolute immunity for those acts.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for judicial acts within their jurisdiction.

LILLEY v. BRABENDER · filed 2021-12-15

Judicial immunity can only be overcome if the judge's actions are “nonjudicial in nature, or where such actions, while judicial in nature, are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” ... Mr. Lilley’s allegations expressly concern actions taken by Judge Brabender while presiding over probation proceedings in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, and each of the alleged actions is a fundamental judicial act that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of a Pennsylvania common pleas judge.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity for rulings made in cases over which they have jurisdiction.

Garrison v. Case, Esq. · filed 2021-12-20

Rulings on pending cases over which they had jurisdiction are precisely the type of judicial action covered by judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a §1983 suit against a judge for the judge’s judicial acts.

Watkins v. State of Wisconsin Circuit Court of Milwaukee · filed 2022-01-03

He may not sue the circuit court judge in a §1983 action.

Domestic relations hearing officers are immune from personal liability under Section 1983 for official actions in the state court judicial system.

BLACKWELL v. TIERNEY · filed 2022-01-03

Therefore, entirely aside from the jurisdictional flaw pursuant to Rooker-Feldman, and the constitutional immunity conferred upon the state by the Eleventh Amendment, Mr. Blackwell’s action fails against Defendant Tierney because she is uniformly entitled to immunity from personal liability for her official actions in the state court judicial system. Accordingly, Mr. Blackwell’s claims under Section 1983 will be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit an individual-capacity damages claim against a judge for judicial acts within the judge’s jurisdiction, even when the judge errs.

Ransom v. Arkansas, State of · filed 2022-01-07

Because Judge Clawson was neither acting without any jurisdiction nor outside of his capacity as a circuit judge, he is entitled to absolute immunity in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against a judge for acts taken in a judicial capacity.

Wilson v. Elkhart County Circuit Court · filed 2022-01-07

Even if Mr. Wilson amended his motion and named the Elkhart County Circuit Court judge as the defendant, a judge cannot be sued for money damages under § 1983 for acts taken in a judicial capacity.

A judge’s violation of procedural rules does not defeat absolute judicial immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Guity v. State of Hawaii · filed 2022-01-11

Yet, even a clear violation of procedural rules does not deprive a judge of absolute judicial immunity. ... Accordingly, Judge Ahn is entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and Guity’s § 1983 claims alleged against her are dismissed with prejudice.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.

Holmes v. Yeakel · filed 2022-01-13

The Court finds the proposed complaint lacks an arguable basis in law because it is based on the indisputably meritless legal theory that judges can be held liable for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.

Absolute judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against judges and courts for conduct protected by that immunity.

Saninocencio v. Welch · filed 2022-01-14

Not only was attorney Dolan’s action plainly barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but as the court noted in dismissing the Amended Complaint, the claims against the Attorney Defendants were also barred by the litigation privilege, the statute of limitations, and the doctrine of res judicata, while the claims against the SJC and Judge Welch were barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity.

A judge is immune from a Section 1983 claim based on actions taken in a judicial capacity in a criminal case.

Cannady v. Department of Mental Health, State of Missouri · filed 2022-01-18

This Court has reviewed the general conclusory allegations of Plaintiff against Judge Dump and finds that not only has Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim, even if a claim could be construed, the allegations pertaining to Judge Dump’s involvement or actions taken in Plaintiff’s underlying criminal case would be barred by judicial immunity.

Judicial officers are immune from § 1983 damages suits arising out of their official duties.

LILLEY v. BAISOON · filed 2022-01-19

Because he is seeking monetary damages for an alleged violation of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff’s claims arise pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Judicial officers are immune from damage suits arising out of their official duties.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judge for acts in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief is unavailable.

McChester v. Behm · filed 2022-01-20

Moreover, the 1996 amendments to § 1983 extended absolute immunity for state judges to requests for injunctive or equitable relief.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for acts performed in their judicial capacity.

Falls v. Meyerson · filed 2022-02-02

Falls complains about orders that Judge Meyerson entered and actions that she took as a judicial officer in the state court case, so she is absolutely immune from liability.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

WILLIAM-WHITFIELD v. COMMONWEALTH PPS SYSTEM · filed 2022-02-03

Since the actions allegedly taken by Judges Shaffer and Coleman were all normal functions done in their judicial capacity in a case over which they properly exercised jurisdiction as Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, they are absolutely immune from suit.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages for acts within their judicial capacity unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Clark v. Cascio · filed 2022-02-04

Judges are seldom liable for § 1983 damages based on their rulings. ... In short, Gill acted within his judicial capacity. ... Second, there is no indication Gill acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

Section 1983 claims against judges are subject to judicial immunity when the challenged acts are judicial and the requested declaratory relief concerns past conduct.

Nikita Lee Mahoney, Kimberly Ann Snodgrass, Christopher Snodgrass, Detrick Brandon, Tina Marie Phares, and Dazarious Bra · filed 2022-02-10

This immunity applies to lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to recover for alleged violations of federal civil rights. ... The record demonstrates that Appellants seek retrospective declaratory relief, which is insufficient to overcome judicial immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a judge in his individual capacity for judicial acts taken within his jurisdiction.

Branch v. Lobello · filed 2022-02-11

Accordingly, any claim for recovery against Judge Lobello in his individual capacity is precluded by Lobello’s judicial immunity from suit.

Judges are immune from Section 1983 suits based on acts performed in their judicial capacity and within their jurisdiction.

Peters v. Rosenthal · filed 2022-02-15

Because Peters’s claims against Judge Rosenthal relate to actions undertaken in the exercise of her judicial function, she is immune from suit, and his claim against her must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against judges for acts taken in their judicial capacity.

Arunachalam v. Davis · filed 2022-02-15

Davis is absolutely immune from damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the acts in the Complaint because all were taken in his judicial capacity.

A state judge is immune from a § 1983 suit for actions taken in her official capacity as a judge.

Johnson v. Dean · filed 2022-02-16

Where an action complained of was taken by a state court judge when she was serving in her official capacity as a state judge, the doctrine of judicial immunity applies.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a judge for acts within the judge’s jurisdiction.

CORPORATE COMMONWEALTH OF PA v. MOODY · filed 2022-02-16

Judge Dominic Pileggi, the judge assigned to CP-23-CR-0003321-2021 is immune from liability under Section 1983 because Moody has not alleged facts to show he acted “‘in in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.

Knotts v. Marra · filed 2022-02-18

Here, Jenkins, a former West Virginia Supreme Court Justice, heard an appeal from a lower court’s decision and was thus performing a traditional adjudicative task within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. As such, he is entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED.

A federal judge sued under Section 1983 is absolutely immune from civil liability for acts performed in a judicial capacity, including claims for equitable relief.

Simmons v. Koh · filed 2021-09-17

A federal judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for acts performed in his or her judicial capacity; this immunity is not limited to immunity from damages, but also extends to actions for declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims based on acts performed in their judicial capacity.

Willis v. State of Oregon · filed 2022-02-24

Plaintiff's claim against Judge Alexander involves conduct executed within the Judge's judicial capacity. Accordingly, Judge Alexander is immune from suit.

Section 1983 generally gives judges absolute immunity for acts within their judicial duties unless they act in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

GOFF-COHEN v. COHEN · filed 2022-03-03

Judges, however, are absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for claims related to their judicial duties save for when those actions are taken in the clear absence of any jurisdiction.

Judges are immune from damages claims under Section 1983 for judicial acts unless they act outside their judicial capacity or in the absence of all jurisdiction.

Reiss v. Baron · filed 2022-03-03

The Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 against Judges Baron and Dominguez under the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Judges are entitled to judicial immunity from § 1983 claims based on their conduct in handling a case.

Klumpp v. Winnebago County Officers of the Court · filed 2022-03-04

In any event, both Judge Seifert and Judge Haase would be entitled to judicial immunity in these circumstances.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for acts taken in their judicial capacity, unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Hulbert v. USA · filed 2022-03-09

Judge Simpson enjoyed absolute immunity from suit for his judicial acts in adjudicating Hulbert’s domestic relations case.

Judicial immunity bars Section 1983 claims against judges for decisions made in criminal cases.

Jammes v. Biskupic · filed 2022-03-10

Judge Biskupic is immune from such a suit.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges and quasi-judicial hearing officers are barred by absolute immunity when based on their decisions about admitting evidence.

Lachey v. Levy · filed 2022-03-15

A decision on the admissibility of evidence in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is an integral part of the judicial process and renders the decision-maker absolutely immune from suit based on such decision.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits arising from their judicial actions.

KASPERSKI v. KATZ, P.J.F.P.VI · filed 2022-03-29

Moreover, even if this Court were to assume the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations, her Complaint must be dismissed because judges are “entitled to absolute immunity from civil suits for actions arising from his or her judicial actions.”

Judges are immune from Section 1983 claims arising from acts performed in the exercise of judicial functions.

Richards v. Hearn · filed 2022-04-04

As his complaints about the judge arise from “acts performed in the exercise of . . . judicial functions,” the judge was entitled to immunity.

Absolute judicial immunity bars Section 1983 claims against judges for their judicial acts.

Rivers v. City of American Canyon · filed 2022-04-04

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff's claims against Judge Smith are barred by absolute judicial immunity and thus are dismissed without leave to amend.

Judicial immunity protects judges from § 1983 claims based on their judicial rulings, and speculation about a conspiracy does not overcome that immunity.

Schwarzer v. Squyres · filed 2022-04-06

But for the reasons explained by the Magistrate Judge, that speculation does not overcome judicial immunity and does not state a claim for conspiracy.

Absolute judicial immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against a judge for judicial acts.

Copeland v. Volland · filed 2022-04-11

The magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice based on the absolute judicial immunity of Defendant for damages and the futility of amendment. The Court has reviewed the Final Report and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

A judge is immune from a Section 1983 damages claim for judicial acts taken within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Raghubir v. Cogan · filed 2022-04-11

Plaintiff fails to assert any plausible claim that suggests that Judge Cogan was without jurisdiction or acted outside his judicial capacity. Thus, Judge Cogan is absolutely immune from suit in this matter.

Judicial or quasi-judicial immunity can bar a claim under Section 1983.

Moskovits v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2022-04-19

We affirm the district court’s dismissal on the basis of judicial or quasi-judicial immunity and failure to state a claim, largely for the same reasons cited by the district court.

Judges are immune from § 1983 claims based on acts taken in their judicial capacity and within their jurisdiction.

Karelefsky v. Konviser · filed 2022-04-20

The complaint here contains no allegations that Justice Konviser acted outside of her judicial capacity, or in excess of her jurisdiction. Every allegation that plaintiff makes concerns either orders that he contends were improperly entered, or actions that plaintiff contends that Justice Konviser should have taken but didn’t, i.e., bringing him to trial. These allegations fall squarely within the scope of judicial immunity. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed because defendant is immune from suit.

Section 1983 claims against a judge are barred by absolute judicial immunity when they concern judicial acts taken within the judge’s jurisdiction.

BRAYBOY v. PAGANO · filed 2022-04-20

Therefore, Brayboy’s claims against Judge Pagano are barred by judicial immunity and will be dismissed with prejudice as amendment would be futile.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against a judge for acts taken in a judicial capacity.

Ezor v. Lacey · filed 2022-04-21

The district court properly dismissed Ezor’s claims against defendant Judge Veals as barred by judicial immunity.

Judges are immune from § 1983 suits for judicial acts unless they act outside their judicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Decory v. Pfiefle · filed 2022-04-28

Pursuant to the Doctrine of Judicial immunity a “judge is immune from suit, including suits brought under section 1983 to recover for alleged deprivation of civil rights, in all but two narrow sets of circumstances.” Schottel v. Young, 687 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 2012). Judicial immunity is overcome only where the alleged actions are “not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity” or were “taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 288, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991). Plaintiff has failed to allege any action by the judges that was nonjudicial in nature or taken without jurisdiction. Indeed, plaintiffs claims against the defendant judges is that they, in their supervisory capacity as presiding and chief judge, failed to intervene in plaintiff's pending federal and state court civil and criminal cases. The judges are immune from suit in this case.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer for acts in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Bey v. Scarriano · filed 2022-05-03

Moreover, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 extends judicial immunity to most actions seeking prospective injunctive relief, and provides that “in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” § 309(c), Pub. L. No. 104-317, 110 Stat. 3847, 3853 (1996) (amending 42 U.S.C. § 1983); see Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 74 (2d Cir. 2004). The plaintiff’s claims against Judge Sciarrino clearly arise out of judicial acts that he took in the post-conviction proceeding before him.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity unless the judge acted outside a judicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Kitchen v. Nelson · filed 2022-05-05

Further, Magistrate Judge Nelson is entitled to the defense of absolute judicial immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a judge for judicial actions unless the judge acted in the absence of all jurisdiction.

Flores v. Osterday · filed 2022-05-06

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. Flores cannot sue Judge Osterday. She is immune from suit because “[a] judge has absolute immunity for any judicial actions unless the judge acted in absence of all jurisdiction.” Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011).

Judicial immunity protects a judge from a Section 1983 damages claim for signing an arrest warrant within her subject-matter jurisdiction, even if she made a serious procedural error.

QUISENBERRY v. RIDGE · filed 2022-05-06

She can make an egregious procedural error in signing that warrant and still be entitled to judicial immunity from a suit for money damages.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for judicial acts within their jurisdiction.

Gillespie v. Dolan · filed 2022-05-11

Plaintiff has not indicated that Judge David Andrew Dolan acted outside his jurisdiction in plaintiffs criminal matters in state court. Thus, this Court cannot find that plaintiff's allegations against him are able to sustain an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state court judges for actions taken in a judicial capacity unless they act in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

ISOM v. WARSHAW · filed 2022-05-11

State court judges, however, are absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for actions taken in a judicial capacity, and may therefore be subject to liability only when they act “in the clear absence of jurisdiction.”

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a judge for judicial acts unless the judge acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Flores v. Landsman · filed 2022-05-16

As an initial matter, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. Flores cannot sue Judge Osterday. ... Because the doctrine of judicial immunity applies, Mr. Flores cannot proceed against Judge Osterday.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on acts taken in their judicial capacity unless they act in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

CLARK v. ALL THE JUDGES OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER · filed 2022-05-18

Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from civil rights claims that are based on acts or omissions taken in their judicial capacity, so long as they do not act in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, Judge Pew and Judge Sawyer are entitled to absolute immunity.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims for acts performed in their official capacities.

Finney v. Logan · filed 2022-05-24

It is well-settled that judges have absolute immunity from damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a judge for conduct in the performance of judicial duties.

Harrison v. Housand · filed 2022-05-26

Second, the claim against Judge Housand is barred by judicial immunity.

Judges are absolutely immune from damages claims under § 1983 for judicial acts.

Conway v. Kappala · filed 2022-06-02

Judges are protected by absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for damages when they are sued for solely judicial acts.

A judge is absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for judicial acts unless the acts are nonjudicial or taken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Stoddart v. Tingy · filed 2022-06-03

Stoddart alleges no facts suggesting that Judge Tingy’s alleged withholding of information from Stoddart in the course of his criminal case was not “judicial” in nature, or that Judge Tingy lacked jurisdiction to preside over Stoddart’s criminal case. Therefore, absolute judicial immunity applies. All claims against Judge Tingy will be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not prevent a federal court from abstaining when the other prerequisites for abstention are met.

Bascom v. Perry · filed 1973-03-28

However, it seems equally clear that the mere fact that a claim is brought under § 1983 does not prevent the application of abstention if the other prerequisites are met.

Section 1983 supports federal court jurisdiction over claims that state officials violated constitutional rights.

Burruss v. Wilkerson · filed 1968-11-16

Federal courts clearly have jurisdiction of the subject matter of this complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198-201, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, (1962).

Section 1983 supports federal jurisdiction over an action alleging that local officials violated constitutional rights.

Simone v. MacPhail · filed 1968-11-04

Jurisdiction is claimed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. Under Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481, jurisdiction exists under these statutory provisions.

Section 1983, together with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2201–2202, supports federal jurisdiction over claims that state ordinances or statutes are unconstitutional on their face or as applied.

Bartholomew v. Port · filed 1970-01-30

The plaintiffs invoke the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3), 1343(4), 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... These sections and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202 provide this court with jurisdiction to hear a claim that ordinances or state statutes are unconstitutional on their face or as applied.

Section 1983 permits a federal court with jurisdiction over substantial constitutional claims to exercise jurisdiction over related federal statutory claims.

Metcalf v. Trainor · filed 1979-05-07

Because this court has jurisdiction over the federal constitutional claims, the court also has jurisdiction over the federal statutory claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and over the state statutory claims pursuant to the court’s pendent jurisdiction.

A § 1983 suit does not automatically qualify for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).

McCall v. Bernard Shapiro, Commissioner, Connecticut Welfare Department · filed 1969-08-11

The language of the sections is not similar, Section 1983 does not contain the “providing for” limitation, nor is there any indication of a congressional intent to provide § 1343(3) jurisdiction for all suits under § 1983.

In a Section 1983 civil rights action, federal courts must give special weight to the plaintiff’s choice of a federal forum for federal constitutional claims.

Mcredmond v. Wilson · filed 1976-02-02

This jurisdictional precept has been repeatedly recognized as carrying special force in civil rights actions under § 1983 since Congress, in adopting that statute and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, "imposed the duty upon all levels of the federal judiciary to give due respect to a suitor's choice of a federal forum for the hearing and decision of his federal constitutional claims," Zwickler v. Koota, supra, 389 U.S. at 248, 88 S.Ct. at 395; McNeese v. Board of Education, supra, 373 U.S. at 673-74, 83 S.Ct. 1433.

A plaintiff may voluntarily waive the right to pursue a § 1983 claim in a federal forum through a contract requiring a state forum.

Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Sanford · filed 2007-12-05

On the contrary, procedural rights under § 1983, like other federal constitutional and statutory rights, are subject to voluntary waiver.

Section 1983 liability does not require a prior judicial declaration that the state procedure used was unconstitutional.

Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg · filed 2002-07-15

Nonetheless, a prior declaration of unconstitutionality is not a condition for § 1983 liability.

Section 1983 does not permit claims that implicate the validity of a conviction.

Vardas v. City of Dallas · filed 2002-11-25

Most of Vardas's claims implicate the validity of his conviction and are not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.

Section 1983 claims that call a conviction’s validity into question cannot proceed until the Heck conditions are met; they may be dismissed with prejudice to reassertion before then.

Smith v. Gambrell · filed 2004-09-23

Therefore, the dismissal of Smith’s claims against Gambrell and Jones is AFFIRMED, but the judgment is AMENDED to state that the claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to their being asserted again until the Heck conditions are met.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim challenging the proceedings leading to a conviction or the fact or duration of imprisonment.

Peay v. Massiah-Jackson · filed 2005-05-26

To the extent that Peay challenged the proceedings leading up to his conviction, or the fact or duration of his imprisonment, his claims were not cognizable in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 cannot be used to challenge a conviction when success would necessarily imply its invalidity, unless the conviction has already been invalidated.

Summers v. Edison · filed 2006-10-26

Use of § 1983 to challenge a conviction outside of these circumstances, which are not present here, is prohibited to the extent that a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.”

Section 1983 does not provide a civil rights action for a state prisoner challenging the fact of incarceration; that challenge must be brought through habeas corpus.

Smith v. Southwood · filed 2007-02-27

Thus, a civil rights action under § 1983 is not appropriate when a state prisoner challenges the fact of his incarceration.

Section 1983 cannot be used to directly challenge the fact of a conviction; that challenge must be brought in a habeas petition.

Stewart v. Kelchner · filed 2009-12-23

To the extent that Stewart attempted to directly attack the fact of his underlying conviction, the District Court properly concluded that the claim should have been brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Section 1983 does not allow state prisoners to challenge the validity of their convictions when success would necessarily demonstrate that the convictions are invalid.

Dennis v. Schwarzauer · filed 2012-11-13

State prisoners must use habeas corpus, not 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when seeking to invalidate their convictions. ... This bar to challenges under § 1983 to the fact or duration of confinement was first articulated by Heck, which held that a § 1983 action will not lie where “establishing the basis for the damages claim necessarily demonstrates the invalidity of the conviction.”

Section 1983 cannot be used to challenge the validity of a conviction; that claim must be brought in a habeas petition.

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez · filed 2020-04-28

Plaintiff’s claim that he did not commit the commitment offense must be brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Section 1983 cannot be used to challenge the fact or duration of imprisonment, and a damages claim that would invalidate a conviction requires the conviction to have been set aside first.

Aziz v. State of Ohio · filed 2020-06-05

Second, to the extent the plaintiff purports to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding his physical imprisonment, conviction, or sentence, such claims are barred by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for challenges to a prisoner’s conviction or custody.

Nanney v. Hooks · filed 2020-07-28

However, Plaintiff’s challenges to his state conviction and custody are not cognizable in this § 1983 action.

Section 1983 cannot be used to challenge the legality of a criminal conviction; habeas corpus is the remedy for that challenge.

(PC) Khademi v. South Placer County Jail · filed 2022-03-09

To the extent plaintiff is trying to challenge his court proceedings and conviction, he may not raise those issues in this case. “[H]abeas corpus is the appropriate remedy” for such claims.

Section 1983 claims that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence must be dismissed unless that conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.

Wroten v. Floyd · filed 2022-04-27

If this type of § 1983 action is brought before the challenged conviction or sentence is invalidated, it must be dismissed. ... Because Wroten was thus effectively collaterally attacking his convictions and sentences and they had not been invalidated, Heck applied, given that the success of his action would necessarily have implied the invalidity of his convictions and sentences.

Section 1983 permits liability for an employee’s constitutional violation when an official policy or settled informal custom caused the violation; employment alone is insufficient.

Serafin v. Johnstown · filed 2002-11-25

Defendants cannot be liable in a section 1983 suit for a constitutional violation by an employee under a respondeat superior theory simply because they employed him or her. Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). The City and Huntley can be liable under section 1983 only if they caused an employee to violate another’s constitutional rights, through execution of an official policy or settled informal custom.

Section 1983 permits liability when an official’s own acts, policies, practices, or procedures violate an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights.

Ginest v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS. OF CARBON COUNTY · filed 2004-07-27

Officials may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when their own acts, including their policies, practices and procedures, violate an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights.

A private individual is liable under § 1983 for a state actor’s violation only if the individual proximately caused the violation.

Franklin v. Jim Fox Martin Murray Robert Morse Bryan Cassandro John Cuneo, Sergeant Eileen Franklin-Lipske · filed 2002-11-27

In order for a private individual to be liable for a § 1983 violation when a state actor commits the challenged conduct, the plaintiff must establish that the private individual was the proximate cause of the violations.

Section 1983 requires a conspiracy claim against a private party to allege facts showing that the party acted with a state actor to commit an unconstitutional act.

Hom v. Brennan · filed 2004-01-29

To state a claim against a private entity on a section 1983 conspiracy theory, the complaint must allege facts demonstrating that the private entity acted in concert with the state actor to commit an unconstitutional act.

When state officials cause a constitutional injury, a private individual is liable under § 1983 only if sufficiently connected to their actions to have caused the injury.

Crowe v. County of San Diego · filed 2004-02-17

Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to hold a private individual liable under § 1983 and the alleged constitutional injury is “clearly the result of state action,” the relevant inquiry is not whether the private actor acted “under color of state law” but rather whether the private actor “is sufficiently connected with the clear state action in this case to have caused these acts to occur within the meaning of section 1983.”

Private parties may be sued under § 1983 when they conspire with government officials to deprive someone of federal rights.

Riccobono v. Whitpain Township · filed 1980-09-30

There are cases, however, which hold that private parties who have conspired with governmental officials to deprive another of his rights under federal law can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Plaintiff has alleged that the private defendants conspired with various officials of Whitpain Township, for the purpose of excluding black people from the Blue Bell area of the Township, to deprive plaintiff of his rights to enjoy, use and dispose of his property. ... Accordingly, we will not dismiss the complaint as it regards the private defendants.

Section 1983 does not make a private custodian liable merely for permitting state officials to search and seize property; liability requires sufficient participation in the state action.

John Richard Brink, Also Known as William Stanley v. Cook Storage, a Corporate Entity · filed 1993-06-29

In light of Mershon, an allegation that a private custodian of property merely permitted state actors to search and seize does not establish sufficient participation in that state action to make the private party liable under § 1983.

A private person may be liable under § 1983 when the person controls state law enforcement decisions in an investigation and thereby causes a constitutional violation.

Fenters v. Yosemite Chevron · filed 2010-12-30

Under the authority of Arnold v. IBM Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1356-57 (9th Cir.1981), a civil rights plaintiff can establish the requisite causation between the conduct of private persons and a violation of § 1983 by proving that private individuals exercise control over the decision-making state law enforcement in an investigation.

A § 1983 claim against a private person requires allegations that the person conspired with state employees to deprive the plaintiff of constitutional rights.

Rucker v. Gloe · filed 2011-09-21

And as the court correctly concluded, Rucker failed to state a claim under § 1983 against Gamez; to do so, Rucker needed to allege a conspiracy between state employees and her to deprive him of his constitutional rights.

A private party cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a conspiracy theory without an adequately alleged agreement to deprive someone of constitutional rights.

Vinatieri v. Mosley · filed 2013-07-09

Because Plaintiff failed to allege a § 1983 conspiracy adequately, his claims against Defendant Arnold Vallerga, a private party, must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not reach a private actor without facts supporting state action.

Collura v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2014-10-27

The Court properly dismissed the federal claims against AlliedBarton, as nothing in Collura’s initial complaint would allow the Court to infer that AlliedBarton, a private actor, would be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 recognizes liability for private parties who conspire with government officials to violate constitutional rights.

Buckler v. Robet B. MacGregor, III · filed 2015-12-15

The complaint alleged that the defendants, as private parties, unlawfully conspired with ... government officials to violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, which is a recognized theory of liability under § 1983.

A private party cannot be liable under Section 1983 for jointly participating in a state official's conduct when that conduct is not prohibited.

Kozel v. Kozel · filed 2018-03-08

Thus, because Detective Rick's actions were not prohibited, even if Defendant Spears jointly engaged with Detective Rick to perform these actions, there would be no violation of Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a private person who agrees with a state official to deprive someone of constitutional rights and willfully participates in the joint activity.

Andersen v. Village of Glenview · filed 2018-11-28

To hold a private individual liable under § 1983, Andersen must establish that 1) a state official and private individual reached an understanding to deprive plaintiff of her constitutional rights, and 2) the private individual was a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.