42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not afford city officials absolute legislative immunity for alleged deprivation of protected property rights when they fail to follow prescribed procedures.

Key West Harbour Development Corp. v. City of Key West · filed 1990-05-22

The court cannot describe the failure to follow prescribed rules of procedure when dealing with protected property rights as a furtherance of the public good or legislative duties. Defendants must justify their conduct which derogated from established process; to hold otherwise would be to grant officials the authority to take any action and breach any law. Defendants Sawyer, Halloran, Lewis and Weekley’s motion to dismiss on grounds of their absolute legislative immunity is therefore denied.

State supreme court justices have legislative immunity from Section 1983 suits challenging their promulgation of court rules, whether the plaintiff seeks damages or injunctive relief.

Alia v. Michigan Supreme Court · filed 1990-06-22

Our ruling in Abick is dispositive of plaintiffs’ claim here. The immunity granted is immunity from suit and applies whether the relief sought is money damages or injunctive relief.

Official immunity can bar a § 1983 damages claim against school officials.

Tice v. Botetourt County School Board · filed 1990-07-18

This question of causation may have been relevant to the Sec. 1983 claim. The Tices appealed the judgment entered on this claim but chose not to brief the point. Regardless, the district court's finding of immunity was entirely appropriate and is affirmed.

Section 1983 damages claims may be defeated by official immunity.

Tice ex rel. Tice v. Botetourt County School Board · filed 1990-07-18

This question of causation may have been relevant to the § 1983 claim. The Tices appealed the judgment entered on this claim but chose not to brief the point. Regardless, the district court’s finding of immunity was entirely appropriate and is affirmed.

State supreme court justices have legislative immunity from a Section 1983 suit over their promulgation of court rules, whether the plaintiff seeks damages or injunctive relief.

Alia v. Michigan Supreme Court · filed 1990-08-30

Our ruling in Abick is dispositive of plaintiffs' claim here. The immunity granted is immunity from suit and applies whether the relief sought is money damages or injunctive relief.

State supreme court justices are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for promulgating court rules in their legislative capacity.

Crosetto v. Heffernan · filed 1990-11-16

The promulgation of court rules is analogous to a legislator’s action in enacting statutes. Accordingly, Defendants are immune from suit when acting in their legislative capacity.

Section 1983 actions against a legislature for acts within its legitimate legislative sphere are barred by absolute common law immunity, including actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.

Lightfoot v. State of Maine Legislature · filed 1990-12-06

To preserve legislative independence within this sphere of legitimate legislative activity the Legislature enjoys absolute common law immunity from section 1983 actions. This immunity extends to suits for declaratory and injunctive relief.

A school committee member performing a primarily administrative function is not entitled to absolute immunity under § 1983.

Vacca v. Barletta · filed 1990-12-12

Since Mr. Barletta was exercising a primarily administrative function during the meeting, he is not entitled to absolute immunity under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not afford a mayor absolute legislative immunity for an administrative layoff decision.

Acevedo-Cordero v. Cordero-Santiago · filed 1991-05-28

Because we have concluded that the Layoff Plan embodied in Ordinance No. 43 and approved by the Mayor on March 16, 1989, was administrative in nature, the Mayor is not entitled to absolute legislative immunity.

City council members sued under Section 1983 have absolute legislative immunity for budget decisions, even when the vote contains a procedural error.

Draughon v. City of Oldsmar · filed 1991-07-12

Given the unequivocal nature of legislative immunity in relation to budgeting and other legislative decisions, the Court cannot imagine that this immunity disappears at the first sign of procedural error. Such a position would defeat the purpose of legislative immunity.

City council members have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability when they perform a legislative act by confirming or rejecting an appointment to the council.

Edgington v. City of Overland Park · filed 1991-07-26

Defendants are clothed with absolute immunity for their actions if voting to reject plaintiffs nomination was a legislative, as opposed to an administrative, act. ... Since defendants were acting to confirm or reject an appointment to the city council, their act was legislative in nature.

Immunity can bar a § 1983 claim against a state and its commonwealth attorney.

J.E. Foley, Variety Rental, Inc. v. Benny Ham, Commonwealth Attorney, the Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 1991-11-18

J.E. Foley appeals the district court's judgment granting the defendants' motion to dismiss this complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Upon consideration, we affirm the district court's holdings on the immunity issues and on the failure of the malpractice claim.

Municipal officials performing legislative functions in enacting an ordinance have absolute immunity from personal liability under § 1983.

Burkhart Advertising, Inc. v. City of Auburn, Ind. · filed 1991-12-19

The court agrees with defendants’ submission that the entire zoning ordinance process—from the time that the Plan Commission initiated action on creating a new ordinance until the Mayor finally signed the proposed ordinance into law—constituted the legislative function. As such, the individually named defendants are entitled to absolute immunity in their personal capacities for any violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under § 1983.

Municipal officials have absolute immunity from Section 1983 damages claims for legislative acts; immunity depends on the nature of the act rather than the official’s title.

Acevedo-Cordero v. Cordero-Santiago · filed 1992-03-06

The district court ruled that legislative immunity applies to municipal officers, but that it is the nature of the particular act rather than the title of the office which governs whether immunity attaches. 764 F.Supp. 702. We agree.

Section 1983 legislative immunity protects local commissioners when they decide whether to introduce legislation, but it does not protect their administrative personnel decisions.

Yeldell v. Cooper Green Hospital, Inc. · filed 1992-03-30

The position of the individual claiming legislative immunity, then, is not dispositive. It is the nature of the act which determines whether legislative immunity shields the individual from suit. ... These decisions are clearly not “an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes” by which legislators pass laws. Instead, they are administrative acts. ... In our opinion, the decision whether or not to introduce legislation is one of the most purely legislative acts that there is.

Municipal council members sued under § 1983 have absolute legislative immunity only for legislative acts; an employment decision affecting one employee is administrative.

Freeman v. McKellar · filed 1992-05-27

Members of a municipal council are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for acts taken in a legislative capacity. ... Municipal employment decisions are administrative in nature and this does not change merely because a legislative body or council is the decision maker under a particular governmental scheme. ... The act complained of in the instant case affected a single individual and clearly fell within the scope of the Council’s administrative duties.

Municipal legislators have absolute legislative immunity from § 1983 claims for taking or condemning property in a legislative capacity, even when the act is allegedly unlawful.

Bials v. Town of Portland, No. 59608 (Jul. 28, 1992) · filed 1992-07-28

Accordingly, absolute legislative immunity applies to the selectmen because their allegedly unlawful act was the taking or condemnation of the plaintiff's property.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state legislator for introducing legislation are barred by absolute legislative immunity.

Rumford Pharmacy, Inc. v. City of East Providence · filed 1992-07-31

Representative Lynch would have absolute legislative immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are immune from liability for acts performed in a legislative capacity, including appointments to legislative positions.

Farrington v. City of Richfield · filed 1992-08-18

Under federal law, respondents are also immune from liability if they acted in a legislative capacity in making the council appointments. ... Appointments to legislative positions are legislative acts.

State legislators are immune from § 1983 claims arising from legitimate legislative activity and cannot be compelled to testify about those acts.

Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer · filed 1992-10-14

Thus, a state legislator acting “within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity” may not be a party to a civil suit concerning those activities, nor may he be required to testify regarding those same actions.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a county that acts as an adverse witness by responding to a state agency’s request for evidence in a permit proceeding.

J & G Wholesale v. Albany County Commissioners · filed 1993-01-29

As it was required to do by its own regulations, the Department of Transportation sought evidence from Albany County. Albany County was, thus, in the role of an adverse witness vis-a-vis the appellant and is immune from appellant’s civil rights complaint.

State law immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim when deliberate or conscious indifference is proven.

Norfleet v. Arkansas Department Of Human Services · filed 1993-03-29

Taureen's complaint set forth allegations of deliberate or conscious indifference, and if proven, these allegations are sufficient to give rise to a § 1983 claim irrespective of any immunity granted under Arkansas law.

Section 1983 permits claims for prospective injunctive relief against parole board officials despite quasi-judicial immunity.

Ken McNeill v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles · filed 1993-04-02

Nevertheless, quasi-judicial immunity does not extend to actions for prospective injunctive relief.

Executive branch officials performing legislative functions, including adopting generally applicable administrative rules, have absolute legislative immunity from § 1983 damages claims.

Redwood Village Partnership v. Graham · filed 1993-04-27

The same rationale that traditionally supports the grant of absolute immunity to “legislators” likewise mandates the grant of such immunity to those executive branch individuals who in substance, are performing a legislative function.

Section 1983 claims cannot proceed against defendants protected by Eleventh Amendment or absolute judicial immunity.

O'Diah v. Applied Risk Management · filed 1993-05-26

O'Diah sued parties with either eleventh amendment immunity or absolute judicial immunity from suit, and he raised conclusory allegations of far-reaching conspiracies between these and other defendants.

For immunity purposes, § 1983 actions against state officials and Bivens actions against federal officials are treated alike.

Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc. · filed 1993-06-07

For purposes of immunity, we have not distinguished actions brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against state officials from Bivens actions brought against federal officials.

Officials are immune from damages under § 1983 arising out of their official legislative activities.

Kraig M. Lager v. Attorney General Henry Cox · filed 1993-07-15

We conclude the district court properly dismissed former Governor Ashcroft and the unknown state legislators as they were entitled to immunity from damages arising out of their official legislative activities.

Absolute legislative immunity bars a § 1983 suit against a mayor in his official capacity over municipal pier ordinances.

Sea Cabin on the Ocean IV Homeowners Ass'n v. City of North Myrtle Beach · filed 1993-07-29

The Court FINDS that Mayor Tilghman, who was sued in his official capacity, enjoys absolute legislative immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A defendant acting pursuant to a judge's directions in entering a sentencing order is immune from damages under § 1983.

Robertson v. Vicky Yarbough Gerald Gibson, and Lou Ann White · filed 1994-01-07

Because Yarbough and Gibson were acting pursuant to a judge's directions in seeing to the entry of the sentencing order contested by Robertson, they are immune from damages.

Section 1983 legislative immunity extends to court administrators when they promulgate court directives on behalf of a state supreme court, but does not protect their enforcement of those directives.

Hughes v. Lipscher · filed 1994-05-16

It is patent, then, that while the New Jersey Supreme Court and the named defendants are insulated from any fee award as a result of their promulgation of the bulletin letter, they possess no immunity with respect to any actual enforcement of that directive against plaintiffs.

Legislative immunity under Section 1983 protects legislators exercising legislative functions but does not cover a council’s ministerial duty to transmit its acts to Congress.

Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor of the District of Columbia · filed 1994-05-20

It is true that section 1983 does not permit suits against legislators acting in their legislative capacity. ... This immunity, however, “protects legislators only in the exercise of legislative functions, not administrative functions.” ... Here, the Council’s duty to transmit its acts to Congress is purely ministerial.

City council members sued under § 1983 have no absolute legislative immunity for case-by-case decisions to pay punitive damage awards under California Government Code § 825(b).

Trevino v. Gates · filed 1994-05-31

We hold that city council members who vote to pay a punitive damage award pursuant to California Government Code Sec. 825(b) perform an administrative, not a legislative, act; therefore, they are not entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not give city council members absolute legislative immunity for case-by-case votes to pay punitive damage awards under California Government Code § 825(b).

Trevino ex rel. Cruz v. Gates · filed 1994-05-31

We hold that city council members who vote to pay a punitive damage award pursuant to California Government Code § 825(b) perform an administrative, not a legislative, act; therefore, they are not entitled to absolute immunity.

A legislator’s firing of an employee for exposing alleged misconduct is an administrative act outside absolute legislative immunity in a § 1983 suit.

West v. Phillips · filed 1994-08-26

Thus, the Defendants did not act in their legislative capacity when they fired West. Their decision was administrative and not protected by legislative immunity.

Immunity analysis in § 1983 suits against state officers follows the same rules as in Bivens actions against federal officers.

Walrath v. United States · filed 1994-09-08

For purposes of immunity analysis, Bivens actions are not distinguished from civil rights suits brought against state officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a state judge sued without a specified capacity, which is construed as an official-capacity suit, and a judge is absolutely immune for judicial acts performed in a judicial capacity.

Berry v. Allen · filed 1994-10-12

First of all, as the plaintiff has sued a state defendant for monetary damages, without specifying the capacity in which he sued the defendant, the defendant is construed to be sued in his official capacity, and thus, he is not subject to suit for monetary damages. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 593 (6th Cir.1989). In addition, the actions complained of constitute judicial acts, performed by the defendant in his judicial capacity, entitling him to absolute immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978); Randles v. Gregart, 965 F.2d 90, 93 (6th Cir.1992) (per curiam); see also Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286, 288-89 (1991) (per curiam).

In § 1983 suits, local council members have legislative immunity for legislative zoning acts and qualified immunity when the asserted property right was not clearly established.

Acierno v. Cloutier · filed 1994-10-18

We conclude that both the present and former members of the County Council are immune from suit because the actions they took with respect to Acierno's commercial property were either substantively and procedurally legislative in nature, or did not abrogate a clearly established property interest.

Section 1983 does not make opposing counsel liable merely for disputing an adversary’s contentions, and testimony, including affidavits, is protected by absolute immunity.

Doe v. Morgenthau · filed 1994-11-08

Counsel for an adversary are not required to agree with the opposing party’s contentions upon pain of being held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And if testimony (including statements made under penalty of perjury such as affidavits) is given, it is protected by absolute immunity to avoid what would otherwise be a chilling effect upon judicial efforts to obtain underlying facts.

Section 1983 does not provide absolute legislative immunity for legislators’ administrative acts, including a decision to discharge a particular employee.

Negron-Gaztambide v. Zaida Hernandez-Torres, Etc. · filed 1994-11-30

Acts undertaken by legislators that are administrative in nature do not “give rise to absolute immunity from liability in damages under § 1983.”

An officer who applies for a search warrant has qualified immunity, rather than absolute immunity, from a § 1983 claim based on that application.

Smith v. Deering · filed 1994-12-20

Accordingly, Sweat is only entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his application for the search warrant.

Judicial immunity does not bar a § 1983 suit seeking equitable relief from parole board decisions.

St. Amand v. Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners · filed 1995-02-01

St. Amand's action does not seek damages. He requests only equitable relief from the decisions of the Parole Board. Therefore, the district court erred in its reliance on Anderson. The Supreme Court held in Pulliam v. Allen that judicial immunity does not protect individual state officials acting in their judicial capacities from suits for injunctive relief. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984); Lebbos v. Judges of Superior Court, Santa Clara Co., 883 F.2d 810, 813 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989). The Parole Board was not immune from St. Amand's suit.

Legislative immunity for an individual-capacity § 1983 damages claim requires the defendant to have acted exclusively in a legislative capacity.

Phillips v. Town of Brookhaven · filed 1995-06-12

We reject the contention of the individual defendants that the plaintiffs’ causes of action to recover damages pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 against them in their individual capacities are barred by the doctrine of legislative immunity. This issue was never raised before the Supreme Court, and it cannot be determined on the instant record that the individual defendants were acting exclusively in a legislative capacity, which is required for immunity to attach (see, Detmer v Acampora, 207 AD2d 475, 476, supra; see also, Donivan v Dallastown Borough, 835 F2d 486, cert denied sub nom. McKinsey v Donivan, 485 US 1035).

Section 1983 gives local town board members absolute legislative immunity from individual-capacity claims arising from their legislative votes on salary resolutions.

Affrunti v. Zwirn · filed 1995-07-21

In light of the clarity which Goldberg and Orange Lake have provided this Circuit with respect to the issue of immunity for local legislators, this Court finds that the individually-named defendants are entitled to absolute legislative immunity from the plaintiffs’ claims under § 1983.

State law cannot immunize a defendant from a Section 1983 civil-rights action.

Barley v. Luzerne County Board of Elections · filed 1995-08-04

We agree with the plaintiffs that this immunity argument must be rejected. First, state law cannot immunize a person against a federal civil-rights action.

In a § 1983 suit, state officers are entitled to qualified immunity when no constitutional violation is alleged, and a state agency is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Jiles v. Jones · filed 1995-08-10

Jiles has failed to allege a constitutional violation and the state officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity, and TDCJ-ID, a state agency, is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 does not give a municipality absolute immunity for the actions of its legislative body.

Berkley v. Common Council of Charleston · filed 1995-08-11

In accord with this controlling, and otherwise impressive, body of authority, we hold that a municipality is not entitled to an absolute immunity for the actions of its legislature in suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

State legislators are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for their legislative acts.

Horton v. MS State Senate · filed 1995-08-30

This he cannot do because state legislators in the act of legislating are absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Legislative immunity protects state legislators and legislative aides from Section 1983 claims when they enforce a facially neutral rule governing legislative proceedings as part of their official duties.

National Association of Social Workers v. Harwood · filed 1995-11-13

Where, as here, a legislative body adopts a rule, not invidiously discriminatory on its face, see infra pp. 634-635, that bears upon its conduct of frankly legislative business, we think that the doctrine of legislative immunity must protect legislators and legislative aides who do no more than carry out the will of the body by enforcing the rule as a part of their official duties.

Section 1983 claims against officials for legislative acts are barred by absolute legislative immunity even when the officials allegedly acted with an illegitimate motive.

Gordon v. Katz · filed 1996-01-17

Even assuming an illegitimate motive, Defendants are entitled to absolute legislative immunity for their legislative acts.

Section 1983 claims against defendants entitled to absolute immunity may be dismissed.

Lawrence v. Pacific · filed 1996-02-29

The magistrate judge recommended that Lawrence's claims against these three defendants be dismissed because they were entitled to absolute immunity, and the district court entered an order adopting the recommendation. After reviewing the record, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing these defendants on grounds of immunity.

Section 1983 immunity is governed by federal law; state litigation immunity does not bar a claim against private attorneys who allegedly conspired with a judge to deprive someone of constitutional rights.

W. Michael Kimes J. Colette Boykin v. Peter G. Stone, Judge, Superior Court Robert L. Mezzetti, II Henry Mariani Robert · filed 1996-05-22

Because state immunity law does not govern § 1983 claims, and the common law did not provide immunity to private attorneys conspiring with a judge to deprive someone of their constitutional rights, Kimes’ complaint does not reveal that his claim against the Attorney Defendants is barred by any immunity.

County supervisors are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims for decisions made in a legislative capacity, including decisions about jail funding.

Teague v. Mosley · filed 1996-07-24

This rationale, we believe, is applicable to county supervisors, and wé adopt a rale of absolute immunity for actions taken in connection with their official duties. However, absolute immunity is only available to these defendants if they were acting in a legislative capacity when making the decision that allegedly resulted in harm to Teague.

State legislators and their aides lack absolute legislative immunity from a § 1983 claim based on demoting or discharging a specific employee, an administrative act.

Chateaubriand v. Gaspard · filed 1996-10-07

The decision to demote and to discharge a specific individual is an administrative act. The Caucus leadership is thus not entitled to absolute immunity for the conduct Chateaubriand alleges.

Municipalities have no legislative immunity from suit under § 1983.

Carver v. Foerster · filed 1996-12-12

The Supreme Court's past treatment of local governments under Section 1983 compels our decision today that Allegheny County is not entitled to legislative immunity in this case.

A plaintiff who defeats a Noerr immunity defense to a § 1983 claim must still prove a § 1983 violation.

Hirschfeld v. Spanakos · filed 1997-01-03

Therefore, the district court should have given preclusive effect to our determination of the bad faith issue and therefore rejected the Board's claim to Noerr immunity. Failure to do so requires that we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for the district court to determine whether Hirschfeld has established that the Board violated section 1983 in seeking a stay of Judge Knapp's order.

Section 1983 legislative immunity protects municipal legislators for legislative acts even when a plaintiff alleges a conspiracy behind those acts.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Village of South Barrington · filed 1997-01-07

Plaintiffs belated conspiracy allegations, even if accepted, cannot pierce the Board members’ veil of legislative immunity.

In a § 1983 action, a state assistant attorney general is absolutely immune for advocacy functions, while qualified immunity can protect other conduct.

Duvall v. Elnicki · filed 1997-02-21

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court correctly ruled that Elnicki was absolutely immune from suit for his advocacy functions as a state assistant attorney general and that Misjak and Elnicki (to the extent Duvall's claims did not involve Elnicki's advocacy functions) were entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

A Section 1983 claim may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when a defendant’s immunity is apparent from the face of the complaint.

Smith v. Gribetz · filed 1997-03-06

However, a motion under 12(b)(6) should be granted if an affirmative defense or other bar to relief such as the immunity of the defendants is apparent from the face of the complaint.

A state dental board has Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 action, and its individual board members have absolute immunity for license revocation proceedings.

Wight v. Board of Dental Examiners · filed 1997-03-27

We reject Wight's contentions that the Board of Dental Examiners is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the individual board members are not entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims against local legislators are barred by absolute legislative immunity when they discipline a member through a legislative act.

Whitener v. McWatters · filed 1997-04-30

Because we conclude that the Loudoun County Board of Supervi- sors acted in a legislative capacity when it voted to discipline Whit- ener, its action is protected by absolute legislative immunity.

Legislative immunity does not shield officials from a § 1983 claim based on an administrative firing that preceded legislative elimination of the position.

Jessen v. Town of Eastchester · filed 1997-05-16

Even assuming, without deciding, that the elimination of Jesseris position was a legislative act, his earlier termination from a position which then, at least briefly, remained open was an administrative act that legislative immunity does not protect.

Section 1983 gives local legislators absolute immunity for legislative acts, but not for permit decisions enforcing existing zoning laws against specific individuals.

Summerchase Ltd. Partnership I v. City of Gonzales · filed 1997-06-17

Regional and local legislators are absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions which are defined as “legislative duties.” ... Based on a review of the case law in this area, the Court concludes the actions of the Board of Aldermen, in revoking the building permit and refusing to accept further building applications, are not covered by absolute legislative immunity because each involves the enforcement of existing zoning laws and affects specific individuals — namely, Summerchase.

Section 1983 affords local legislators absolute legislative immunity for legislative acts.

Carlos v. Santos · filed 1997-08-15

We therefore now explicitly hold that the doctrine of absolute legislative immunity under § 1983 applies to local legislators.

Section 1983 claims for individual-capacity damages against county commissioners are barred by absolute legislative immunity when the challenged conduct is adopting a county budget.

Woods v. Gamel · filed 1998-01-14

Defendant commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity from this suit, and their motion to dismiss (treated as a motion for summary judgment) should have been granted in favor of each commissioner sued for money damages in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 provides absolute legislative immunity to county commissioners sued for damages in their individual capacities for legislative budget decisions, including allocations for a county jail.

Woods v. Gamel · filed 1998-01-14

The budgetary decisions made by defendants for funding the county -- including the jail -- are legislative acts protected by legislative immunity.

Section 1983 affords local legislators absolute immunity from suit for their legislative activities.

Bogan v. Scott-Harris · filed 1998-03-03

Because the common law accorded local legislators the same absolute immunity it accorded legislators at other levels of government, and because the rationales for such immunity are fully applicable to local legislators, we now hold that local legislators are likewise absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for their legislative activities.

State legislative immunity bars § 1983 suits seeking declaratory or injunctive relief for legislative acts.

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. · filed 1980-06-02

Although Tenney involved an action for damages under § 1983, its holding is equally applicable to § 1983 actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits declaratory and injunctive relief against officials enforcing a policy even when legislative immunity protects their decision to adopt it.

Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library · filed 1998-04-07

Plaintiffs may therefore properly sue the Library Board and its individual members for declaratory and injunctive relief under § 1983 to prevent them from enforcing the Policy.

Local officials performing legislative functions in the zoning ordinance process have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on those acts.

Maynard v. Beck, Wc97-0122 (1998) · filed 1998-04-10

In light of the considerations addressed above, this Court finds that absolute immunity for its legislative actions would extend to the Town Council members named in their official capacities as well as the defendant members of the Planning Board and Town Planner named in their individual capacities.

Local legislators are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for legislative acts, including votes on appointments.

Gupta v. Town of Brighton · filed 1998-06-26

Local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from suit under § 1983 for actions taken in their legislative capacities. ... Because defendants Barbato and Frankel acted in their legislative capacities when they voted to appoint a new Library Trustee, they are immune from civil rights liability based on any alleged wrongdoing in the performance of that function.

Absolute legislative immunity does not bar a § 1983 damages claim when the official appears to have administered the challenged rules as well as promulgated them.

New York State National Organization for Women v. Cuomo · filed 1998-07-24

He appears to have been involved not only in the promulgation of these rules, but in their administration. ... Therefore, Mercado is not entitled to absolute immunity from suit.

Section 1983 legislative immunity shields state legislators from claims for prospective injunctive relief arising from their legislative acts, including impeachment proceedings.

Larsen v. Senate of The Commonwealth · filed 1998-08-11

Accordingly, we conclude that the Senators were entitled to the protections of legislative immunity from suit for Larsen's claims for prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 does not provide absolute legislative immunity to local officials for administrative acts, including decisions to ban a person from attending or speaking at public meetings.

Kamplain v. Curry County Board of Commissioners · filed 1998-10-27

Thus, because Defendants were acting in an administrative capacity when they banned Plaintiff’s attendance, participation, and speech at Commission meetings, they are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity.

Local officials have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for legislative acts, including votes to abolish a city position.

Lumpkin v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE, ALA. · filed 1998-10-27

Nevertheless, the law gives absolute immunity to the individual defendants in this case because the plaintiff seeks to recover against them on the basis of their legislative acts.

Section 1983 does not give planning commission members absolute legislative immunity for an administrative decision denying approval of a subdivision plat.

Homeowner/Contractor Consultants, Inc. v. Ascension Parish Planning & Zoning Commission · filed 1999-01-06

Thus, the Court finds that the decision by the members of the Planning Commission to deny approval of the plaintiffs preliminary plat for the proposed subdivision development was administrative in nature. Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity for the action.

Section 1983 claims cannot impose personal liability on city officials for adopting redevelopment programs as part of their legislative function because they have legislative immunity.

Davis v. City of Portsmouth, Va. · filed 1983-12-20

The decision of the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and City Council members to adopt certain redevelopment programs is part of their legislative function, which entitles them to immunity. Therefore, plaintiffs’ action against the defendants could only result in liability, if any, against the City, and not personally against the members of the City Council, Mayor and Vice-Mayor.

Local officials are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity from a § 1983 claim for a quasi-judicial or administrative decision on an individual zoning permit.

Keys Youth Services, Inc. v. City of Olathe, Kan. · filed 1999-02-23

Based on Kansas law, the Court finds that the zoning decision in this case — whether to grant a conditional use permit — was a quasi-judicial or administrative act rather than a legislative act. Thus defendants are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity for their decision to deny Keys’ application for a special use permit.

Section 1983 personal capacity claims against parish council members are barred by absolute legislative immunity when the challenged zoning decision is a legislative act.

BellSouth Mobility, Inc. v. Parish of Plaquemines · filed 1999-03-11

As such, members of the Parish Council involved in the zoning decision are entitled to absolute legislative immunity from personal capacity suits.

Local legislators have no absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for a vote authorizing discipline of a particular employee because that vote is an administrative act.

Campana v. City of Greenfield · filed 1999-03-30

The absolute immunity discussed by the Court in Bogan does not apply to the Council members in this case. The Council’s vote allowing Mayor Seider to suspend Campana was not a legislative activity. The Council members’ action had no implications for the position of city treasurer in general; the vote was an administrative act narrowly focused on the discipline of a particular city employee.

Local legislators are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for acts within their legislative duties.

American Federated General Agency, Inc. v. City of Ridgeland · filed 1999-03-30

This court finds that the individual defendant McGee acted in accordance with his respective legislative duties in the instant case and is entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for his actions.

Section 1983 affords local legislators absolute immunity from claims based on their legislative acts.

Bryan v. City of Madison, Miss. · filed 1999-03-31

However, contrary to the plaintiffs argument that the process was merely administrative, this court already has determined that the process was legislative in nature and that the individual defendants, local legislators implementing that process, were entitled to absolute legislative immunity from claims under § 1983 for their legislative acts.

Municipal legislators have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims arising from acts taken in their legislative capacity.

Scully v. Borough of Hawthorne · filed 1999-06-28

Municipal legislators enjoy an absolute immunity against claims brought pursuant to Section 1983 where such claims arise from actions taken in their legislative capacity.

State legislators are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for acts within legitimate legislative activity, including ordering legislators to attend a session.

Shultz v. Sundberg · filed 1984-01-13

State legislators enjoy absolute immunity from suits for damages by individuals alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when their conduct occurs in a field where legislators traditionally have the power to act. ... On the basis of these undisputed facts, the court concludes that defendant Kerttula’s action in ordering the attendance of absent House members lies within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity and, accordingly, this defendant is entitled to absolute immunity from civil suit.

A § 1983 complaint may be dismissed when the defendants are immune from suit.

Brown v. State of AR · filed 1999-10-08

Having carefully reviewed the record and Brown’s brief, we decline to appoint counsel, and we conclude dismissal was proper because the complaint failed to state a claim and was brought against defendants who were immune.

Section 1983 provides absolute immunity to local legislators for votes that eliminate a position as part of a departmental reorganization.

Macuba v. County of Charlotte, FL · filed 1999-10-29

Therefore, insofar as Macuba rests liability on the elimination of his position as a License Investigator, appellants are entitled to absolute immunity.

County commissioners have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims based on legislative votes to reorganize departments, even when the reorganization eliminates an employee’s position.

MacUba v. Matthew Deboer, Michael Youseff, Charlotte Commissioners, Individually and in Their Official Capacities · filed 1999-10-29

Therefore, insofar as Macuba rests liability on the elimination of his position as a License Investigator, appellants are entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against municipal officials are barred by legislative immunity when the challenged conduct is part of the legislative process, including drafting and presenting a proposed zoning ordinance.

Maynard v. Beck · filed 1999-12-01

That the planning commission’s activities are not the final step in the ordinance-adoption process is of no consequence as long as its members are performing legislative functions. Here, the challenged acts all fell within a protected category of legally mandated legislative functions. For these reasons, we hold that the trial justice was correct in finding that the defendants were entitled to invoke the doctrine of legislative immunity in their defense to this complaint.

Section 1983 legislative immunity does not cover executive or administrative acts.

Zdziebloski v. Town of East Greenbush, NY · filed 2000-02-23

Plaintiff has satisfactorily established that his amended complaint bases its claims on certain alleged actions by the Defendants that are colorably executive or administrative, and thus outside the scope of their legislative immunity.

Section 1983 affords municipal legislators absolute immunity from damages and equitable relief for acts within their legislative capacities.

Latino Political Action Committee, Inc. v. City of Boston · filed 1984-02-28

For that reason, I rule that the Mayor and City Council members are absolutely immune from suit for damages under §§ 1983 and 1985 to the extent that they acted in their legislative capacities. Moreover, I rule that, for the same reason, the Mayor and members of the City Council are also absolutely immune from suit for declaratory and injunctive relief under § 1983 and § 1985 for acts within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.

Municipal officials acting in a legislative capacity have absolute immunity from individual claims for money damages under § 1983.

Timber Properties, Inc. v. Chester Tp. · filed 1984-03-02

Following this unbroken line of authority since Lake Country Estates, this court concludes that municipal officials enjoy absolute immunity from suit for money damages pursuant to § 1983 when acting in a legislative capacity.

Section 1983 claims against state legislators for decisions about legislative staff appointments are barred by legislative immunity.

Birdsong v. Dirck · filed 1984-03-13

He claims relief under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The appointment of individuals to the fiscal analyst post in the Missouri Legislature is, therefore, one of defendants’ legislative duties. Thus, defendants are cloaked with legislative immunity with respect to the activities complained of in plaintiff’s complaint.

Individual officials who participate in adopting a legislative reorganization plan have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from that action.

McHugh v. Board of Education of the Milford School District · filed 2000-06-05

In conclusion, both Postles and Smith, as participants in the legislative process that led to the adoption of the administrative reorganization plan, are entitled to absolute immunity from McHugh’s § 1983 claims.

In § 1983 suits, legislative immunity protects local officials’ rezoning acts but does not protect a mayor’s vetoes of a particular development plan.

Bryan v. City of Madison MS · filed 2000-06-09

The first challenged activity, the mayor’s repeated vetoes, was non-legislative. ... Based on these standards, however, we must grant legislative immunity for the events related to the November 3, 1993 board meeting, which is the fourth set of activities. These activities were irregular and inappropriate. But they were still legislative in nature because they involved a rezoning provision.

Section 1983 gives officials, including local legislators, absolute immunity for legislative acts.

Figueroa-Serrano v. Ramos-Alverio · filed 2000-07-25

Officials performing legislative functions have absolute immunity from suit and liability under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not extend legislative immunity to municipal officers sued in their official capacities.

Legal Aid Society v. City of New York · filed 2000-09-18

Pursuant to Section 1983, municipal officers are protected by common law immunities, such as legislative immunity, only when sued in their personal capacities and not when sued in their official capacities.

A zoning hearing board chair who stops irrelevant speech while presiding over a hearing can have qualified and absolute quasi-judicial immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Zapach v. Dismuke · filed 2001-03-26

Therefore, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions. Further, because Defendant was acting as a quasi-judicial officer and his act of silencing the Defendant was of a judicial nature, Defendant is also entitled to absolute immunity. Because we have found that Defendant has immunity for his interfering with Plaintiffs speech, we will grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the § 1983 First Amendment claim.

In a § 1983 suit, employment actions concerning particular employees are executive or administrative and do not receive absolute legislative immunity.

Ballas v. City of Reading · filed 2001-04-03

Employment actions taken with respect to particular employees are executive or administrative in nature and not entitled to absolute immunity.

Absolute and qualified immunity can bar § 1983 claims against individual defendants.

Picha v. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District · filed 2001-04-18

The district court did not err by finding defendant Schectman protected by absolute immunity, see Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir.1999), defendants Newburn and other District employees protected by qualified immunity, see Newell v. Sauser, 79 F.3d 115, 117 (9th Cir. 1996), and the District not liable under Monell v. Dep’t of Social Sens., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

Section 1983 legislative immunity protects a state legislator from suit over business telephone calls and decisions to restrict access to their records.

Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Roberts · filed 2001-05-31

In the present case, Petitioners filed a Section 1983 action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Rep. Roberts in his official capacity. Respondent would therefore be immune from suit if his actions were within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” ... Therefore, we hold that business telephone calls made by members of the General Assembly fall within the meaning of “legitimate legislative activity.” Consequently, the act of Rep. Roberts denying access to his business telephone records is likewise within the sphere of legislative activity.

Section 1983 permits declaratory and injunctive claims against a local body with independent enforcement authority, despite its legislative immunity for enacting the challenged ordinance.

Vaughn v. St. Helena Parish Police Jury · filed 2001-12-06

The absolute immunity of local legislators is equally applicable to § 1983 actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. ... This is not the way the law has developed, and, because of its own inherent and statutory enforcement powers, immunity does not shield the defendant from a claim for injunctive or declaratory relief in this case.

Legislative immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against county commissioners for an administrative decision to terminate an employee.

Bechard v. Rappold · filed 2002-04-19

We conclude that defendants’ actions in terminating Bechard, whether justified or actionable, were in any event not entitled to legislative immunity.

Local legislators have absolute immunity from Section 1983 suits for conduct in furtherance of their duties, including decisions on rezoning requests.

Landers v. City of Cleburne · filed 2002-06-12

“[L]ocal legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conduct in furtherance of their duties.” Hernandez v. Lafayette, 643 F.2d 1188, 1193 (5th Cir. 1981). The denial of a request for rezoning is a legislative act.

Section 1983 immunity is governed by federal law; a state statute cannot immunize a defendant from a federal civil rights claim.

Romstad v. Contra Costa County · filed 2002-07-01

The district court erred in applying California Government Code § 820.2, a state immunity statute, to the Romstads’ federal claims. “Immunity under § 1983 is governed by federal law; state law cannot provide immunity from suit for federal civil rights violations.”

State agencies may have Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 claims, and individual defendants may have qualified immunity.

Kelly v. Medical College of Ohio · filed 2002-07-09

As to the § 1983 claim, the court held that the Medical College was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as a state agency and that the individual defendants were protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. ... Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its opinion and order entered on October 23, 2000.

Section 1983 legislative immunity protects a legislature when it enacts a statute, but does not shield it when it intervenes to defend the statute after executive officials decline to do so.

Planned Parenthood v. Attorney General · filed 2002-07-11

The Legislature is typically immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. S 1983 and thus cannot generally be held liable for fees under 42 U.S.C. S 1988. Supreme Ct. of Va. v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, 732-34 (1980). While legislative immunity protects the Legislature in its legislative capacity -- i.e., for promulgating the Act at issue in this case -- we conclude that the Legislature is not entitled to immunity in this case because defending the Act was an act outside of its legislative capacity.

City council members have legislative immunity from § 1983 claims based on their acts within the legislative sphere.

Thornton v. City of St. Helens · filed 2002-11-19

The procedure adopted for approval of wrecking certificates is thus within the legislative sphere, and the individual legislators are entitled to legislative immunity. Consequently, to the extent that plaintiffs’ claims against the City Council rest on application of the ordinance, summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants is granted.

Legislative immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged conduct is administrative rather than legislative.

Brennan v. Straub · filed 2003-02-27

The individual defendants argue that they were acting in a legislative capacity in connection with their involvement in the elimination of Brennan’s position and therefore that the § 1983 claims against them should be dismissed. This defense is unavailing at this time due to the strictures of Rule 12(b)(6), because the facts as alleged in the complaint do not establish that their actions were legislative, as opposed to administrative, in nature.

Local board members have no absolute legislative immunity from a Section 1983 claim for administrative employment decisions about an individual.

Harhay v. Town Of Ellington Board Of Education · filed 2003-03-21

The Board members are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity because their acts were not quintessentially legislative, but rather were part of a process by which an employment situation regarding a single individual was resolved.

Defendants’ immunity can bar monetary relief under Section 1983.

Brooks v. Overton · filed 2003-07-11

The court also properly held that the defendants were immune from Brooks’s claims for monetary relief and that his claim for injunctive relief was moot, as a supplement to his complaint indicated that partitions had been installed in the showers.

Legislative immunity bars § 1983 claims for damages and declaratory or injunctive relief when the defendant’s challenged acts are legislative.

Lewis v. New Mexico Department of Health · filed 2003-08-05

Legislative immunity applies to § 1983 actions seeking damages and declaratory or injunctive relief. ... Thus, Defendant Governor Johnson is entitled to legislative immunity.

Local legislators have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for legislative acts, even when those acts disproportionately affect one person.

La Conner Associates LLC v. Berg · filed 2003-09-10

General legislative acts that have an inordinate impact on one individual do not necessarily deprive legislators of absolute immunity.

Local legislators have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for legislative acts, including an ordinance abolishing a position with effects beyond the current employee.

Collins v. Village of New Vienna · filed 2003-09-18

Crediting Collins’s allegations as true, the district court correctly concluded that the individual defendants are entitled to absolute legislative immunity for the act of abolishing the position of Village Administrator, the only issue raised on appeal.

Officials whose budget recommendations or votes are legislative in nature have absolute legislative immunity from § 1983 liability regardless of their motive or intent.

Brominski v. County of Luzerne · filed 2003-11-04

Such officials enjoy absolute legislative immunity from § 1983 liability regardless of the officials’ motive or intent. ... Accordingly, this court will dismiss the individually named defendants from the lawsuit since they are entitled to absolute legislative immunity.

State legislators have legislative immunity from § 1983 claims arising from their allocation of district office funds under authority delegated by an appropriations law.

Youngblood v. DeWeese · filed 2003-12-18

We hold that Representatives DeWeese and Veon’s acts of allocating the General Assembly’s office-staffing appropriation among individual Representatives are legislative acts to which legislative immunity extends.

Section 1983 claims against state legislators are barred by legislative immunity when the challenged allocation of appropriated legislative office funds is a legislative act.

Youngblood v. DeWeese · filed 2003-12-19

We hold that Representatives DeWeese and Veon’s acts of allocating the General Assembly’s office-staffing appropriation among individual Representatives is a legislative act to which legislative immunity extends.

Section 1983 claims against prison misconduct hearing officials cannot proceed when those officials are entitled to immunity.

Umbarger v. Correctional Medical Services · filed 2004-03-16

Umbarger’s claims against Sage and Heisler may not proceed because they are entitled to immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on state legislators or committee counsel for preparing and releasing a committee report as part of legitimate legislative activity.

Green v. DeCamp · filed 1980-01-04

Thus, on the basis of Doe v. McMillan, we conclude the mere release “to news reporting and publishing agencies” of the Fitzgibbons report was a legitimate legislative activity. All of the defendants are therefore immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis of the legislative immunity doctrine announced in Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951).

Municipal officials may claim absolute legislative immunity from a § 1983 suit only when sued in their individual capacities; an official-capacity damages judgment runs against the municipality.

Moua v. City of Chico · filed 2004-04-09

However, as plaintiffs point out (Pis.’ Opp'n at 20-22), municipal officials may only claim absolute immunity when they are sued in their individual capacities. When, as here, they are sued in their official capacities, any judgment for damages will run against the municipality that employs them.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Virgin Islands legislators’ absolute immunity from suit for legitimate legislative activity.

Unidos v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands · filed 2004-04-19

Virgin Islands legislators, under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Revised Organic Act of 1954, as a general riile, are absolutely immune from suit, so long as they are engaged in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity. Neither 42 U.S.C. § 1983 nor section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a), abrogate this legislative immunity.

Members of the California Adult Authority are immune from damages claims under § 1983 arising from their official duties.

Gilmore v. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Lawson, Members California Adult Authority · filed 1970-03-04

The members of the California Adult Authority are immune from actions for damages arising out of the performance of their official duties.

Section 1983 affords county legislators absolute immunity from damages for acts performed in a legislative capacity.

Rheuark v. Shaw · filed 1979-08-31

Thus, to the extent that the individual defendants were acting in a capacity comparable to that of members of a state legislature, they are entitled to absolute immunity from damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 absolute legislative immunity covers a legislator’s hiring decision for a personal aide whose work offers meaningful input into the legislative process.

Manuel AGROMAYOR, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Severo COLBERG, Defendant, Appellant · filed 1984-07-05

However, we see enough opportunity for “meaningful input” into the legislative process such that the employment decision should be immunized.

Section 1983 bars damages claims against officials who enjoy absolute immunity.

Dr. Edward A. Pryzina v. Ley · filed 1987-03-04

We also note that Judge Ledlin and Judge Wing enjoy absolute immunity from liability for damages.

Section 1983 does not afford municipal judges absolute legislative immunity for adopting an English-only court personnel rule.

Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District · filed 1988-01-27

Appellants challenge the issuance of the injunction and also appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on Gutierrez’s section 1981, 1983, and 1985(3) claims. Their motion was based on the defenses of absolute and qualified immunity. ... Further, we hold that appellants are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity.

Section 1983 affords legislators of a state's political subdivisions absolute immunity from liability for acts taken in a legislative capacity.

Haskell v. Washington Township · filed 1988-12-20

Therefore, for the reasons enunciated by the Eighth Circuit in Gorman Towers, we hold that our previous holding in Nelson is no longer valid and that legislators of any political subdivision of a state are absolutely immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 insofar as they are acting in a legislative capacity.

Section 1983 provides state legislators absolute immunity for actions taken in their legislative capacities.

Bradley v. Mallory · filed 1989-02-24

State legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in their legislative capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against local legislators for legislative acts protected by absolute legislative immunity.

Dwonzyk v. Baltimore County · filed 2004-06-29

Accordingly, as all of the Plaintiffs allegations are inextricably tied to the legislative act of the County in eliminating his position, his claims fail because they are barred under absolute legislative immunity.

Section 1983 permits damages against a municipality for implementing its ordinance even when the officials who enacted it have absolute legislative immunity.

Pesticide Public Policy Foundation v. Village of Wauconda · filed 1985-08-19

In this case, therefore, although the individual defendants enjoy absolute immunity from a suit for damages caused by the enactment of an allegedly unconstitutional ordinance, the Village itself may be held liable for damages resulting from implementation and enforcement of the invalid ordinance because that ordinance embodies the policy and custom of the Village.

Section 1983 legislative immunity protects a state legislator’s decision to fire an employee whose position provides meaningful input into the legislative process.

Lasa v. Colberg · filed 1985-10-01

The Supreme Court has clearly held that state legislators acting in a legislative capacity are absolutely immune from the imposition of injunctive remedies or civil damages in suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Protection should be afforded a legislative decision to hire or fire only when the particular position at issue provides sufficient opportunity for meaningful input into the legislative process. ... With this in mind, the Court finds that defendants’ discharge of Mr. Lasa was an act performed in furtherance of their legislative duties and is thus protected by legislative immunity.

Section 1983 does not afford school board members legislative immunity for an employee termination shown to be an administrative act.

Baird v. Board of Education for Warren Community Unit School District No. 205 · filed 2004-11-12

The issues raised by this appeal are, how- ever, a totality involving the termination of an employee, which is an administrative act. The evidence does not estab- lish that the Board members are entitled to legislative immunity.

Section 1983 gives local legislators absolute immunity for introducing and voting on ordinances.

Moran v. City of New Rochelle · filed 2004-11-16

In light of these principles, it is clear that Defendant Ruth Kitchen is entitled to absolute immunity for her actions in introducing and voting for the farm animal ordinance in this case.

Section 1983 affords school board members absolute legislative immunity for votes adopting a budget reorganization, regardless of alleged retaliatory motive.

Callaway v. Hafeman · filed 1986-02-24

Although there are apparently no cases which expand this doctrine to school board members, the conclusion is inescapable that there is no principled way to deny such coverage. ... The formulation of the reorganization plan, and the votes taken which, in effect, eliminated plaintiff’s position from the budget, were clearly legislative acts. ... Thus, these defendants must be granted summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s federal retaliation and conspiracy claims.

City council members have absolute immunity from Section 1983 suits for legislative acts, including passing an ordinance.

R.S.W.W., Inc., D/B/A Goose Island Brewery v. City of Keego Harbor · filed 2005-02-10

The passage of the Sign Ordinance is a purely legislative act for which all council members are immune from suit.

Section 1983 claims against public officials are subject to qualified immunity for official acts unless the conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights.

Lorusso v. Borer · filed 2005-02-28

Even though they are not entitled to absolute immunity for non-legislative conduct, public officials, like Mayor Borer, still enjoy qualified immunity from damage actions under § 1983 for “acts undertaken in their official capacity, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known.”

Section 1983 legislative immunity protects a mayor from personal liability for signing an ordinance.

Welch v. North Slope Borough · filed 2005-04-05

Signing or vetoing an ordinance is a legislative function. Therefore, Nageak is entitled to immunity from liability for his decision to sign, rather than veto, the Borough’s hiring ordinance.

Section 1983 does not abrogate absolute legislative immunity for state legislators acting in their legislative capacities, even when a suit seeks prospective relief against them in their official capacities.

Scott v. Taylor · filed 2005-04-13

Because Appellants are state legislators who acted in their legislative capacities, they are entitled to absolute legislative immunity. This is true regardless of whether a suit seeks damages or prospective relief and regardless of whether the state legislators are named in their individual or official capacity.

Pension-system trustees are immune from liability under § 1983.

Felkins v. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System · filed 2005-05-06

We further note that Trustees are immune from liability under § 1983.

A governor has absolute legislative immunity from § 1983 damages claims for signing legislation into law.

Torres-Rivera v. Calderon-Serra · filed 2005-06-14

Likewise, a governor who signs into law or vetoes legislation passed by the legislature is also entitled to absolute immunity for that act.

School board members are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity from a § 1983 claim when their challenged vote is an individual employment decision rather than a legislative act.

Canary v. Osborn · filed 2000-05-03

Based on the above considerations, it becomes evident that the members of the Board in the present case are not entitled to summary judgment on their claim of legislative immunity. Even “stripped of all considerations of intent and motive,” the action in substance was not essentially and clearly legislative.

Local legislators have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for actions within legitimate legislative activity.

Horne v. Russell County Commission · filed 2005-07-15

Local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for “all actions taken ‘in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.’ ” Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) (quoting Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951)).

Legislative immunity does not shield administrative officials from § 1983 claims based on processing individual applications.

Thornton v. City of St. Helens · filed 2005-09-06

Because Baker and Little are not legislators and were not sued for performing a legislative act, legislative immunity does not shield them from suit.

Judges are entitled to judicial and sovereign immunity, and county attorneys to absolute prosecutorial immunity, from § 1983 damages claims.

Schrier v. Paulson · filed 2005-11-16

Defendant judges were entitled to judicial immunity, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 (1991) (per curiam), as well as sovereign immunity, see Williams v. Missouri, 973 F.2d 599, 599-600 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); the county attorney was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity, see Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 867 (1996); and, even assuming that the remaining defendants were suable entities, the allegations against them did not state a constitutional violation attributable to governmental policy or custom, see Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dep’t, 28 F.3d 802, 807 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1004 (1995).

Section 1983 permits civil rights suits against officials while recognizing absolute immunity for protected judicial functions and qualified immunity in applicable circumstances.

Dornheim v. Sholes · filed 2005-12-07

It is well settled that officials are entitled to absolute immunity from civil rights suits for the performance of duties which are "integral parts of the judicial process" as long as the judicial function was granted immunity under common law at the time § 1983 was enacted.

Local legislators have absolute immunity from Section 1983 damages for legislative acts, but legislative immunity does not bar injunctive or declaratory relief.

White River Amusement Pub. v. Town of Hartford, Vt. · filed 2005-12-15

Local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability under Section 1983 for their legislative activities. ... Legislative immunity must be afforded to the Legislative Defendants because their enactment of the Public Indecency Ordinance was a purely legislative function. Therefore, summary judgment must be GRANTED in favor of the Legislative Defendants on all of Plaintiffs damages claims against them. However, the Legislative Defendants are not immune from the injunctive and declaratory relief sought by the WRAP, and therefore summary judgment is DENIED in favor of the Plaintiffs with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief.

Section 1983 claims against a state and officials in their official capacities can be barred by sovereign immunity; officials sued individually can be protected by qualified immunity.

Curt Daniels v. State of IA · filed 2006-03-14

In a thorough and well-reasoned order, the district court granted the defendants’ motion, finding in favor of the defendants on numerous, alternative grounds: ... (3) Daniels’s claims against the State of Iowa and the individually named plaintiffs in their official capacities were barred by sovereign immunity; and (4) the claims against the individually named plaintiffs in their individual capacities were barred by qualified immunity. We affirm for all of the reasons set forth by the district court.

Absolute legislative immunity bars § 1983 liability for a meeting moderator’s legislative enforcement of rules of order.

Carlow v. Mruk · filed 2006-03-28

The court concludes that Mr. Burns’ actions in enforcing the rule of order prohibiting nonresidents from speaking and its corollaries at the December 9, 2003, annual meeting were legislative in nature and are, therefore, protected by absolute legislative immunity.

Local officials who enact a zoning ordinance have absolute legislative immunity from § 1983 claims for that act; officials who did not enact it do not receive immunity on that basis.

County Concrete Corporation v. Township Of Roxbury · filed 2006-03-31

Thus, under the test we announced in Acierno, the enactment of the Ordinance was a "legislative" act, which entitles those defendants who enacted it to absolute legislative immunity for the act. It surely does not entitle the individual defendants who were not involved in enacting the Ordinance to immunity, but the District Court made no finding as to who was and who was not involved, instead lumping all defendants together in some sort of amorphous legislative "process."

Section 1983 claims against state entities and State Bar Court judges are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and judicial immunity, respectively.

Torres v. State Bar of California · filed 2006-05-19

The district court correctly dismissed Torres’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the state entities and State Bar Court judges as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and judicial immunity, respectively.

Section 1983 suits alleging that a state legislative branch violated federal constitutional rights are not categorically barred by absolute immunity.

Mundo-Rios v. Vizcarrondo-Irizarry · filed 2002-10-24

Hence, Bond plainly stands for the age-old doctrine that State legislative branches may not invoke absolute immunity from suits in federal courts when their legislative acts violate federal constitutional rights.

Section 1983 damages claims against legislators and legislative staff are subject to legislative immunity for acts within their official legislative activities, even when committee authorization came after the act.

Dombrowski v. Colonel Thomas D. Burbank · filed 1966-02-04

We do regard it as serving to keep appellees’ acts in pursuing the Subcommittee’s long-standing interest in appellants within the mainstream of legislative effort to a degree adequate to protect against liability in damages for issuing and executing the subpoena.