42 U.S.C. § 1983

Legislative immunity does not protect an executive official from a Section 1983 claim for ordering executive tasks.

Percefull v. Chris Claybaker, etc · filed 2006-11-09

Legislative immunity is typically reserved for those officials acting in some sort of legislative capacity, and it has no application where an executive official orders the performance of executive tasks.

Legislative immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim arising from an administrative decision to fire a legislative employee.

Fowler-Nash v. Democratic Caucus of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives · filed 2006-11-29

The Democratic Caucus was not acting in a legislative capacity when it fired Fowler-Nash and should not be protected by absolute legislative immunity.

Legislative immunity bars § 1983 claims against legislators for their legislative activity.

Bergman v. Stein · filed 1975-11-19

Plaintiff’s claim of infringement of Fourth Amendment rights is dismissed against defendant Stein in so far as it relates to his legislative activity because suit is barred by legislative immunity.

Section 1983 claims against local legislators are barred by legislative immunity when they concern budget votes and related discussions or agreements, even if those discussions occurred in secret.

Almonte v. City Of Long Beach · filed 2007-02-14

Applying this principle to the instant case, we conclude that legislative immunity cloaks not only the vote on the budgetary resolutions, but also any discussions the Council members may have held, and any agreements they may have made, regarding the new budget in the months preceding the actual vote. That the discussions and agreements occurred in secret does not strip these activities of their legislative function. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiffs' §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 claims relate to the legislative termination of the budget lines for their positions, the denial of legislative immunity was incorrect as a matter of law and must therefore be reversed.

Section 1983 damages claims against local legislators in their individual capacities are barred by absolute legislative immunity for legislative acts such as passing a zoning amendment.

Cornell Companies, Inc. v. Borough of New Morgan · filed 2007-05-31

In sum, I will dismiss the SDP and EPC facial challenge claims against defendants Richard Venezia, Tressie Marroon, and Robert Williams. The above defendants, in their individual capacity, are immune from liability for damages under those § 1983 claims.

Inmate complaint examiners are immune from suit under § 1983.

Al Ghashiyah v. WI Parole Commission · filed 2007-07-26

The inmate complaint examiners are immune from suit.

Section 1983 provides absolute legislative immunity to board members for legislative acts, including promulgating regulations.

Grunert v. Campbell · filed 2007-08-23

Local legislators are “absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for their legislative activities.” ... Because the actions of the Board were legislative, individual Board members have absolute legislative immunity.

Municipal officials have legislative immunity from personal liability under § 1983 for adopting regulations and setting legislative enforcement policies, but may still face official-capacity claims.

South Lyme Property Owners Ass'n v. Town of Old Lyme · filed 2008-02-04

Therefore, the six Defendants who have submitted the motion presently before the Court are immune from personal liability for their roles in adopting and enforcing the 1995 Regulations. The Defendants may, nonetheless, be liable in their official capacity for any constitutional violations they have committed, but, insofar, as these Defendants claim immunity from personal liability under § 1983, the Court grants summary judgment in their favor.

Section 1983 affords local legislators absolute immunity from individual-capacity liability for legislative acts.

Craig v. Police Jury Grant Parish · filed 2008-02-06

The police jurors are therefore entitled to absolute legislative immunity in their individual capacities.

Municipal legislators have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for legislative activities, including discretionary meeting management, budget decisions, and votes.

Hogan v. Township of Haddon · filed 2008-03-11

Municipal legislators enjoy absolute immunity from suit and liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their legislative activities.

Section 1983 damages claims against officials for legislative acts are barred by legislative immunity.

Lattaker v. Rendell · filed 2008-03-18

Nevertheless, we find that Lattaker’s damages claims against the individual Defendants are barred by the legislative immunity doctrine and that his claim for declaratory relief fails to satisfy the “case or controversy” requirement of the federal Constitution.

Legislative immunity bars claims under § 1983 for prospective injunctive relief that would seriously interfere with the legislative function.

Gibbs v. Minner · filed 2008-03-31

Gibbs seeks prospective injunctive relief. Legislative immunity does not extend to such claims for relief in some cases, but it clearly extends to claims – like Gibbs’s here – that would “seriously interfere” with the legislative function.

Section 1983 gives county commissioners at most qualified immunity for their administrative child welfare duties, rather than absolute legislative immunity.

Cameron v. Montgomery County Child Welfare Service · filed 1979-05-22

We hold that these aspects of their responsibilities prevent defendants from availing themselves of an absolute legislative immunity. They are entitled, at most, to a qualified immunity, the merits of which cannot be adjudicated on this motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 does not immunize state legislators from liability for violating federal constitutional rights.

Parker v. Merlino · filed 1980-06-13

Furthermore, Art. IV, § 4, ¶ 9, of the New Jersey Constitution, which tracks the federal speech and debate clause, cannot immunize a state legislator from liability for violation of federal constitutional rights made actionable by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for damages against persons who violate federal rights under color of state law, subject to immunity for legislators acting in a legislative capacity.

Oaks v. City of Fairhope, Ala. · filed 1981-05-20

To the extent that Oaks bases a damage claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 upon the City Council’s vote on the proposed Library budget, the claim is untenable. The City Council’s votes on the Library budget constituted legislative acts. “[I]f legislators of any political subdivision of a state function in a legislative capacity, they are absolutely immune from being sued under the provisions of § 1983.” Bruce v. Riddle, 631 F.2d 272, 279 (4th Cir. 1980). Accord, Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980); Gorman Towers, Inc. v. Bogoslavsky, 626 F.2d 607, 614 (8th Cir. 1980); Wells v. Hutchinson, 499 F.Supp. 174, 185 (E.D.Texas 1980). Since the members of the City Council enjoyed absolute immunity with respect to their votes on budgetary matters, Oaks’ contentions regarding the council’s actions are without merit.

Section 1983 permits civil actions against persons who, under color of state law, deprive others of federal rights, subject to legislative immunity.

Searingtown Corp. v. Incorporated Village of North Hills · filed 1981-11-06

Accordingly, to the extent that the individual defendants are sued here for acts taken in a legislative capacity, they are absolutely immune.

Section 1983 gives municipal decisionmakers qualified good faith immunity for administrative acts rather than absolute immunity for legislative acts.

Coffey v. Quinn · filed 1983-11-14

Municipal decisionmakers passing on administrative questions possess qualified good faith immunity, not absolute immunity.

Section 1983 authorizes damages actions against persons who, under color of state law, deprive others of federal rights, subject to applicable immunities.

Timmon v. Wood · filed 2008-04-21

For those reasons, local officials like Defendants are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits arising out of their legislative actions.

Section 1983 gives municipal legislators absolute immunity for their legislative activities.

Schor v. Daley · filed 2008-06-30

Municipal legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their legislative activities.

Section 1983 claims are subject to immunity defenses that can require dismissal.

Frankel v. Supreme Ct PA · filed 2008-08-13

We have reviewed the district court’s thorough and thoughtful memoranda explaining the absence of subject matter jurisdiction to hear some of Frankel’s claims in federal court, and why the defendants are entitled to immunity on his remaining claims. The district court’s memoranda fully and accurately explain why Frankel’s complaint must be dismissed, and we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth therein.

Section 1983 claims for damages against Prisoner Review Board members are barred by absolute immunity for adjudicatory and administrative actions, while injunctive relief remains available.

Davis-El v. O'LEARY · filed 1986-01-17

In, the present case, the plaintiff may only seek injunctive relief from the Board and its members.

Local legislators may be sued in their official capacities under § 1983, but legislative immunity shields them from individual liability for legislative activities.

Smith v. Jefferson County School Board of Commissioners · filed 2008-11-24

Although plaintiffs may sue a local legislator in his or her official capacity under § 1983, local legislators may invoke legislative immunity to insulate themselves as individuals from liability based on their legislative activities.

Section 1983 gives county commissioners absolute personal immunity for legislative votes restructuring government positions.

Ditch v. Bd. of County Com'rs of County of Shawnee · filed 1986-11-02

The court finds that defendants Hanna and Kingman’s conduct in voting for the two resolutions concerning the E.E.O. position was legislative in nature, thus entitling them to absolute personal immunity.

Municipal officials have absolute legislative immunity from § 1983 claims for actions that are substantively and procedurally legislative.

Schlegel v. Koteski · filed 2009-01-20

The board’s adjustments to the office of Real Estate Tax Collector were clearly legislative in nature, thus cloaking the individual board members with absolute immunity.

Section 1983 provides absolute immunity from damages claims against local officials for legitimate legislative activity.

Jaggers v. City of Alexandria Alexandria · filed 2009-02-02

That is, individual members of local governmental bodies, like the Council Members, are absolutely immune from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when conducting legitimate legislative activity.

Section 1983 claims against a state judicial branch and state judges in their official capacities may be barred by sovereign and judicial immunity.

Daigneault v. Judicial Branch · filed 2009-02-17

We hold that the District Court correctly found that plaintiffs claims were barred by sovereign immunity, see, e.g., Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663-64, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (observing that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a non-consenting state in federal court brought by a state’s own citizens or citizens of another state), the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-92, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (noting that the Rook-er-Feldman doctrine prevents a party who loses in state court from “calling upon the District Court to overturn and injurious state-court judgment”), and judicial immunity, see, e.g., Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980) (holding that judges have absolute immunity from suit, even where a plaintiff claims that they have conspired to corrupt their office).

Section 1983 claims against district attorneys may be barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity, and police officers may receive qualified immunity when the plaintiff has not shown a constitutional violation.

Barsch v. O'Toole · filed 2009-03-02

The district court correctly determined that the defendant district attorneys were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), and that the defendant police officers are entitled to qualified immunity, because Barsch has not shown that they violated his constitutional rights, Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999).

Section 1983 does not afford local legislators absolute immunity for an individual promotion decision because that decision is administrative rather than legislative.

Schlarp v. Dern · filed 2009-03-24

Dern and Taylor do not enjoy absolute immunity from suit for their decision to promote Kapusta instead of Schlarp.

Section 1983 claims against legislators are barred when they act in a legislative field because legislators have absolute immunity from damages and injunctive relief.

CABLEVISION v. City of Paragould, Ark. · filed 1990-05-09

As an initial matter the Court finds that plaintiffs claims against the individual members of the City Council and the members of the LWC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred. Legislators are absolutely immune from suit for all damages or injunctive relief when performing their roles “in a field where legislatures traditionally have power to act.”

Municipal legislators are immune from individual Section 1983 claims arising from legislative decisions to condemn property for public works, even if they allegedly acted with improper motives.

Sable v. Myers · filed 2009-04-24

That the councilors may have exercised that discretion on the basis of motives that were irrelevant to public purposes does not affect the councilors’ legislative immunity.

A prison counselor sued under § 1983 cannot claim the limited immunity for discretionary parole duties when his job requires him to present a prisoner's letter to the pardons board.

Brown v. Wilson · filed 1974-03-26

We believe that here, however, such principles are inapplicable since the Defendant had more than a discretionary duty to present the letter, but was required to do so by the very position of his employment.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for damages against officials, subject to absolute or qualified immunity.

Allred v. Svarczkopf · filed 1978-01-20

In 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, officials thus enjoy either an absolute immunity [Imbler v. Pachtman, supra] or a qualified immunity [Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975)] from damage liability.

Section 1983 does not abrogate absolute legislative immunity for regional commissioners acting within legitimate legislative activity, even when declaratory or injunctive relief is sought.

W. Birkenfeld Trust v. Bailey · filed 1993-05-27

In Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, 446 U.S. 719, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980), the Court held that Congress did not intend § 1983 to abrogate the common-law immunity of legislators, whether the action is one for damages or for declaratory or injunctive relief. ... As the conduct clearly falls within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, the Commissioners are entitled to absolute legislative immunity and the claims against them must be dismissed.

Section 1983 legislative immunity does not bar an injunction against a legislator enforcing an unconstitutional suspension.

Kucinich v. Forbes · filed 1977-02-10

Further it is this Court’s view that the Tenney case grants immunity to individual legislators from damage actions predicated on § 1983, but not from being enjoined, under § 1983, from enforcing an unconstitutional suspension of a duly elected member of the legislative body.

Section 1983 affords town board members only qualified good-faith immunity when they deny a license under an existing ordinance, because that act is administrative rather than legislative.

Kinderhill Farm Breeding Associates v. Appel · filed 1978-04-21

This Court holds that defendants’ actions in denying the mobile home license sought by plaintiff were administrative or executive rather than legislative in character. In granting or denying such permits the Town Board engages in the application of an existing statutory scheme rather than the deliberative and communicative processes necessary to the formulation, consideration and enactment of legislation that Tenney sought to protect. Defendants are therefore entitled only to the qualified “good faith” immunity accorded government officials under Wood v. Strickland, supra. Since plaintiff alleges that defendants acted maliciously and in bad faith, it has stated a claim under § 1983, and defendants’ motion to dismiss must be denied.

Section 1983 does not impose personal liability on county council members for legislative votes to rezone property.

Bruce v. Riddle · filed 1979-02-05

With its origins firmly based in the common law, the doctrine of legislative immunity is fully applicable either within or outside the scope of the sort of limited constitutional tort action sanctioned by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... This court therefore concludes that the doctrine of legislative immunity is fully applicable to the facts of this case and requires that the motion of the individual defendants for judgment on the pleadings be granted.

In § 1983 suits, state legislators have absolute immunity for acts within legitimate legislative activity, but that immunity does not cover their actions after an investigatory committee dissolves.

Cole v. Gray · filed 1981-03-02

Thus, we must conclude that the actions of Jones and Holmes taken during the pendency of the committee were protected by this rationale. We find those actions and statements occurring after the committee dissolved to be outside its coverage.

Section 1983 claims for injunctive relief against state officials sued in their official capacities may be barred by legislative immunity.

State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition v. Rowland · filed 2007-07-10

Accordingly, we adhere to our holding in Star Distributors, 613 F.2d at 8-9, and reaffirm the vitality of its teaching that claims for injunctive relief against defendant state officials, sued in their official capacities, may be barred by the doctrine of legislative immunity, notwithstanding arguably ... contradictory dicta in Graham and Umbehr.

Local legislators are not entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for administrative acts.

SUNLAND PUB. CO., INC. v. City of Jackson · filed 1999-09-27

Therefore, the councilpersons are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity from individual liability under § 1983.

State court justices have legislative immunity from Section 1983 claims challenging rules they adopted when they lack independent power to enforce those rules.

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation · filed 2000-01-04

Since the Texas Supreme Court Justice Defendants do not possess independent enforcement powers the Court finds they are absolutely immune pursuant to Supreme Court of Virginia.

Local officials are absolutely immune from Section 1983 liability for acts integral to the legislative process.

Bond v. Marion County Board of Supervisors · filed 2000-03-20

The steps taken by the Board were integral to the legislative process for which the members are entitled to absolute immunity.

Local legislators have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on legislative acts, including passing a moratorium or amending a town code.

Christian v. Town of Riga · filed 2009-08-17

Legislators are entitled to absolute legislative immunity for claims brought under § 1983. ... While it is not entirely clear, it appears plaintiff may intend to allege causes of action against members of the Town Board based on passage of a moratorium (Counts 6, 17 and 20) and amendment to the Town Code of the Town of Riga in connection to the wind turbines, in which case both actions enjoy legislative immunity.

Section 1983 does not give local board members legislative immunity for administrative employment decisions directed at an individual.

Harhay v. Blanchette · filed 2001-08-28

These acts, although performed by a body which has legislative powers, are not legislative in nature, and the Board members are therefore not entitled to legislative immunity.

Local officials are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for actions integral to the legislative process.

Bond v. Marion County Bd. of Sup'rs · filed 2001-12-13

The steps taken by the Board were integral to the legislative process for which the members are entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims against medical board officials may be dismissed when absolute or qualified immunity shields the officials.

Bearman v. California Medical Board · filed 2009-08-26

David Bearman, M.D., appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered in favor of respondents, Board, Executive Director Ron Joseph, and Board area supervisor Laura Sweet, after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, a demurrer to appellant’s second amended complaint alleging violation of his federal civil rights. (42 U.S.C. § 1983.) We affirm because the action is barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity as to some defendants and qualified immunity as to other defendants.

Absolute legislative immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against a local legislator when the evidence shows corrupt conduct primarily serving personal interests.

EJS PROPERTIES, LLC v. City of Toledo · filed 2009-08-27

McCloskey asserts absolute legislative immunity in response to EJS’ § 1983 claims. ... It has submitted evidence that McCloskey acted in bad faith, corruptly and primarily in furtherance of his own personal, rather than the public interests. McCloskey thus is not entitled to absolute legislative immunity.

Section 1983 provides local officials absolute immunity for legislative acts, including voting to enact and extend a generally applicable development moratorium.

THUNDERBIRD HOTELS, LLC v. City of Portland · filed 2009-11-05

Under the guidance of the decisions cited above, I conclude that Adams’ conduct upon which this action is predicated can only be fairly construed as of a “legislative” nature, and that Adams is therefore entitled to absolute legislative immunity and should be dismissed from this action.

Section 1983 claims against judicial officers and court clerks may be dismissed when judicial or quasi-judicial immunity applies.

Bugg v. Boots · filed 2010-02-23

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Peggy Boots, the Circuit Clerk for Randolph County, Missouri, and the Honorable Cynthia Suter, Associate Circuit Judge for Randolph County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and monetary damages. Upon careful review, see ... Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (dismissal based on judicial immunity reviewed de novo); Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598, 602 (8th Cir. 1999) (dismissal based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), reviewed for abuse of discretion); Martin v. Hendren, 127 F.3d 720, 721 (8th Cir. 1997) (dismissal based on quasi-judicial immunity reviewed de novo), we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

Section 1983 claims against the State of Oregon are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and claims against a county justice of the peace are barred by judicial immunity.

Eugene Pringle, Jr. v. Hank Majetich · filed 2010-03-04

The district court properly dismissed Pringle’s claims against the State of Oregon as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974), and his claims against the county justice of the peace as barred by judicial immunity, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967).

Section 1983 does not impose individual damages liability on county commissioners for quasi-judicial permit decisions or legislative acts protected by immunity.

Grace Church of Roaring Fork Valley v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2010-09-20

The plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims and the RLUIPA claims are asserted against the Pitkin County Commissioners in them official and individual capacities. There is no basis for individual liability. The Pitkin County BOCC acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when it denied the Church’s special review application. ... The individual board members are thus immune from claims for damages based on that decision. ... To the extent that the plaintiffs seek to impose individual liability on any of County Commissioners for their participation in enacting the Land Use Code, such conduct is protected by legislative immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a forensic scientist for court-ordered evidence testing may be barred by absolute or qualified immunity.

Newton v. City of New York · filed 2010-09-21

Moreover, I am confident as to my ruling that the claims against Ryan must be dismissed based on either absolute or qualified immunity.

A mayor and city council members had absolute legislative immunity for their actions in approving a lease and sale challenged under § 1983.

Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho · filed 2010-10-06

We hold that Mayor Bieter and the members of the City Council are entitled to absolute legislative immunity for their actions in promoting and approving the lease and sale of Community House to the BRM.

Immunity can bar § 1983 claims for damages and retrospective equitable relief against state agencies and individual defendants.

Sprague v. The Medical Board of Californi · filed 2010-11-02

The district court properly dismissed Sprague’s claims seeking damages and retrospective equitable relief against the Medical Board of California and the individual defendants because her claims were barred by various doctrines of immunity.

Section 1983 permits suits against local legislators in their official capacities, but legislative immunity shields them from individual liability for legislative activities.

Smith v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BD. OF SCHOOL · filed 2011-02-11

Although plaintiffs may sue a local legislator in his or her official capacity under § 1983, local legislators may invoke legislative immunity to insulate themselves as individuals from liability based on their legislative activities.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity suits against local legislators, but legislative immunity bars individual-capacity claims based on their legislative acts, regardless of the relief sought.

Smith v. Jefferson County Board of School Commissioners · filed 2011-02-11

Therefore, we hold that the Board members may be sued in their official capacities but may not be sued as individuals for money damages or declaratory or injunctive relief.

Section 1983 does not give local legislators legislative immunity for voting to remove a particular employee, an administrative act.

Carlson v. City of Delafield · filed 2011-03-11

The individual Defendants voted to terminate Carlson’s employment. Unlike the ordinance at issue in Bogan, the individual Defendants engaged in an administrative act by voting to remove Carlson from his position with the City. ... The individual Defendants have not established that they are entitled to legislative immunity.

Local officials lack absolute legislative immunity from a Section 1983 claim when they apply existing land-use policies to a dispute between neighbors rather than engage in legislative activity.

Schubert v. City of Rye · filed 2011-03-31

In other words, Defendants were refereeing a dispute between neighbors in the context of already-existing land-use policies. They were not reacting to these neighbors’ complaints seeking the adoption of new land-use policies. In so acting, Defendants, therefore, were not protected by legislative immunity.

Section 1983 legislative immunity protects a governor from liability for a line-item veto that eliminates a position as part of a budget policy.

Bagley v. Blagojevich · filed 2011-05-02

The district court did not err in finding that legislative immunity protected Governor Blagojevich’s veto of the captain position’s funding, nor did it err in finding that the former captains waived their claim against the other non-Blagojevich defendants “by making no real argu- ment on the claim.”

Section 1983 does not give officials absolute legislative immunity for administrative acts such as failing to provide notice of a meeting and an opportunity to be heard.

Borde v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2011-05-18

Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the defendants absolute legislative immunity with respect to the plaintiffs’ procedural due process claims.

Section 1983 claims against officials are barred by absolute legislative immunity when the challenged acts are legislative in nature, including proposing a budget and speaking before a legislative body.

Kensington Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. Montgomery County · filed 2011-05-31

“Local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for their legislative activities.” ... Accordingly, I find that absolute legislative immunity attaches to the actions taken by Bowers and Leggett in this case.

A city council member has absolute legislative immunity from a § 1983 claim based on her vote to deny a rezoning application.

Lee v. Whispering Oaks Home Owners' Ass'n · filed 2011-06-23

Similarly, Defendant Cibrian’s actions in voting to deny the rezoning application are protected by absolute legislative immunity. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against Defendant Cibrian on the basis of absolute immunity is granted.

Section 1983 claims against parole board officials are barred by absolute quasi-judicial immunity for parole decisions.

Weeks v. Tufono · filed 2011-07-25

The district court properly dismissed all of Weeks’s claims because parole board officials are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for decisions to “grant, deny, or revoke parole,” which are “functionally comparable to tasks performed by judges.”

Section 1983 damages claims against certain defendants are barred by Eleventh Amendment, judicial, or prosecutorial immunity.

Winters v. Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services · filed 2011-11-22

Further, various defendants were (1) immune from claims for damages under the Eleventh Amendment, see Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Sevenoaks, 545 F.3d 906, 911 (10th Cir. 2008); (2) entitled to absolute immunity, see Whitesel v. Sengenberger, 222 F.3d 861, 867 (10th Cir. 2000) (judicial immunity); Gagan v. Norton, 35 F.3d 1473, 1475 (10th Cir. 1994) (prosecutorial immunity); or (3) without notice as to the bases of the claims against them, see Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1104 (10th Cir. 2009). ... Having carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the appellate briefs in the light of the governing law, we agree with the district court’s analysis of Ms. Winters’ claims.

A school board member who allegedly contrived misconduct charges to remove a colleague is not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage without further factual development.

Lilly v. Lewiston-Porter Central School District · filed 2011-12-20

This Court further agrees with Judge Foschio’s conclusion that neither absolute nor qualified immunity should, at this time and without further factual development, shield Defendant Schaubert from liability under § 1983 for bringing misconduct charges and removal proceedings against Plaintiff under the circumstances alleged.

Local governments sued under § 1983 cannot claim the common law legislative immunity available to individual legislators.

Doe v. Pittsylvania County · filed 2012-02-03

There are two reasons why common law legislative immunity has no application to this case. First, such immunity only extends to Board members sued in their individual capacities, and does not shield the County and the Board, as entities, from constitutional review of their actions.

Section 1983 does not give city council members legislative immunity for a decision targeting an individual employee rather than making general policy.

Leaphart v. Williamson · filed 2012-02-07

The decision to terminate Leaphart rather than to assign her to the new human resources position was not a legislative act because it targeted Leaphart individually and did not “involve ‘policy-making of a general purpose.’ ” ... Therefore, the Court declines to grant summary judgment on the basis of legislative immunity.

Section 1983 claims may be dismissed on Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity grounds.

Sullivan v. Deramcy · filed 2012-02-10

A review of the record reveals that the district court did not err in rejecting Sullivan’s claims and granting the defendants summary judgment based on their Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity from suit.

Legislative immunity bars § 1983 claims against judges for legislative acts when they lack independent authority to enforce the challenged action.

Goodwin v. Castille · filed 2012-02-23

Judicial Appellees are similarly entitled to absolute legislative immunity for their April 15, 2011 order removing the magisterial district judge vacancy from the primary and general election and eliminating the District altogether.

A § 1983 action may be dismissed when the defendants are protected by absolute judicial immunity, derivative judicial immunity, or sovereign immunity.

Kendrick v. Cavanaugh · filed 2012-03-29

Karin Marie Kendrick appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action as barred by absolute judicial immunity, derivative judicial immunity, and sovereign immunity. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Local officials have legislative immunity from § 1983 claims arising from legislative decisions about meeting agendas.

Guindon v. Township of Dundee, Michigan · filed 2012-05-17

Plaintiffs’ claim that they were deprived of their First Amendment rights because they were not placed on the agenda is barred by legislative immunity.

Section 1983 legislative immunity protects officials who perform legislative functions, including proposing and advocating a county budget.

Kensington Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. Montgomery County · filed 2012-06-27

"Local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for their legislative activities." ... Thus, the district court properly found that Leggett and Bowers are entitled to legislative immunity.

Judges who adopt and apply a policy through legislative acts have absolute legislative immunity from section 1983 claims arising from those acts.

Schmidt v. Contra Costa County · filed 2012-09-10

Because Defendants Brady, Haight, Maddock, and Baskin are entitled to legislative immunity from Schmidt’s section 1983 and California Constitution claims for their role in adopting and applying the Policy to Schmidt, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Judge Defendants.

Section 1983 claims against state legislators are barred by absolute legislative immunity when the challenged conduct is a legislative act, including passage of a resolution.

Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Saccone · filed 2012-10-01

It is pellucidly clear that resolutions, whether passed by a single house or both, whether creating legally binding obligations or not, fall squarely within the scope of absolute legislative immunity from suit. For this reason, defendants in this case are entitled to absolute immunity from suit, and FFRF’s complaint must be dismissed.

Section 1983 provides absolute legislative immunity to officials sued individually for acts performed in a legislative capacity.

Olma v. Collins · filed 2012-10-10

State, regional, and local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for official action undertaken in “the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” ... Accordingly, the individual appellants, sued in their personal capacities, are entitled to legislative immunity, and the order of the district court is vacated insofar as it applies to them.

Local officials claiming legislative immunity from a Section 1983 suit must show that the challenged acts followed established legislative procedures.

Kalinoski v. Cty · filed 2013-01-18

All that the record suggests is that notice of the impending budgetary vote was published and that the County Board of Commissioners voted to approve the budget. Quite simply, this is not enough to demonstrate that Kalinoski lost his job as the result of acts that were carried out according to “established legislative procedures.” Gallas, 211 F.3d at 774.

Section 1983 claims against defendants in their individual capacities may be barred by prosecutorial or qualified immunity.

Franklin v. Hinds County Sheriff Dept., et a · filed 2013-05-03

Franklin’s claims against McBride, individually, are barred by prosecuto- rial immunity; his claims against Investigator Pittman, individually, are barred by qualified immunity; and his claims against the Sheriff’s Department, which were actually against the county, failed to state a constitutional violation.

City councillors do not establish legislative immunity from a § 1983 claim merely by showing that their decision involved public spending.

Alexander v. City of Bessemer · filed 2013-10-18

Because the petition before us argues only that decisions regarding the expenditure of money are necessarily entitled to legislative immunity and does not argue that the decision to refuse payment of Alexander’s legal expenses was in fact based on “legislative facts” or was a reflection of the establishment of a new “general policy,” the petitioners have not here demonstrated a right to relief on the ground of legislative immunity.

Municipal officials sued in their official capacity cannot invoke legislative immunity against Section 1983 claims.

Libbey v. Village of Atlantic Beach · filed 2013-11-04

As Plaintiffs’ claims against the Village Defendants are primarily — if not entirely — against them in their official capacity, the Village Defendants are not entitled to legislative immunity.

Local legislators have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from legislative acts, including votes on zoning amendments.

American Islamic Center v. City of Des Plaines · filed 2014-03-24

The conduct constituted legislative activity, thus triggering absolute legislative immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against state judicial and disciplinary officials can be barred by absolute or sovereign immunity.

Weissbrod v. Gonzalez · filed 2014-08-19

Moreover, Weissbrod’s claims seeking damages, among other forms of relief, against the defendants in their individual and official capacities were properly dismissed on the grounds of absolute and sovereign immunity.

Conclusory allegations cannot overcome immunity from a Section 1983 claim.

Patton v. Bryant · filed 2014-11-20

Patton’s conclusional allegations are insufficient to pierce any applicable immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims are barred by prosecutorial immunity for initiating and prosecuting a case and by qualified immunity for arresting officers with arguable probable cause.

Davis v. Markley · filed 2015-02-06

The prosecutors acted in their roles as prosecutors by initiating and prosecuting Davis’s case. Because the complaint did not allege, much less suggest, that the officers lacked arguable probable cause to arrest him, qualified immunity bars his claims against them as well.

Municipalities generally cannot claim legislative immunity from § 1983 suits.

Kijek v. Gober · filed 2015-02-11

However, legislative immunity is generally not applicable to a municipality.

Section 1983 claims against state legislators and their aides are barred by absolute legislative immunity when the challenged conduct is integral to legislative activity.

Reeder v. Madigan · filed 2015-03-11

The defendants are thus entitled to abso- lute legislative immunity from suit in this case, and we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court to this effect.

Section 1983 claims are barred against local legislators for legislative activities.

Weiler v. Village of Oak Lawn · filed 2015-03-31

“Local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for their legislative activities.” ... Thus, Deetjen can benefit from absolute immunity even if he did not vote on the ordinance.

A county cannot claim absolute legislative immunity from a § 1983 suit for the legislative actions of its commissioners.

Scicchitano v. County of Northumberland · filed 2015-06-26

Unlike the individual Defendants, Defendant Northumberland County does not enjoy an absolute legislative immunity for the legislative actions of its county commissioners.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities, a state bar, and a bar prosecutor may be barred by immunity.

Paulson v. Oregon State Bar · filed 2015-07-14

The district court properly dismissed Paulson’s claims for damages against Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Balmer, and the Oregon State Bar and its prosecutor, Jeff Sapiro, because these defendants are entitled to immunity.

Local legislators lack absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims when they apply existing rules to a development plan for a specific property.

Da Vinci Investment, L.P. v. City of Arlington, Te · filed 2015-08-11

We conclude that the council members’ denial of Da Vinci’s development plan was not a legislative decision. There is no absolute immunity for the council members’ actions.

The Tennessee Public Protection Act does not give governmental entities or their employees immunity from a § 1983 claim based on a First Amendment violation.

Ellison v. Knox County · filed 2016-01-15

The Court, therefore, does not find that governmental entities, or employees thereof, have immunity to a § 1983 action based on the applicability of the TPPA.

State-agent immunity and state sovereign immunity do not bar a § 1983 deliberate-indifference claim.

Johnson v. Dunn · filed 2016-05-13

As we noted in the opinion on original submission, the defendants pleaded only the defenses of state-agent immunity and state sovereign immunity, and those defenses are not applicable to Johnson’s deliberate-indifference claim.

A § 1983 claim cannot proceed against defendants who are immune from suit.

Hunter v. Harris · filed 2016-06-23

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hunter’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because Hunter’s claims are frivolous and defendants are immune from suit.

Section 1983 gives local legislators absolute immunity for legislative acts, but personnel decisions directed at particular employees without a broader legislative policy do not qualify.

Bierce v. Town of Fishkill · filed 2016-07-13

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, local legislators are absolutely immune from liability for their legislative activities. ... However, we have previously held that personnel decisions—even if accomplished by vote—are administrative, and therefore not immune to liability, if they are directed at a particular employee and do not adopt or implement a broader legislative policy.

In § 1983 suits, Eleventh Amendment immunity bars claims against state agencies and damages claims against state officials in their official capacities, but does not bar claims for prospective reinstatement against those officials.

Ex parte State Board of Education · filed 2016-09-09

The SBOE is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from the respondents’ § 1983 claim. Dr. Bice and Dr. Richardson, in their official capacities, are entitled to immunity from liability under the Eleventh Amendment insofar as the respondents seek money damages. Dr. Bice and Dr. Richardson, in their official capacities, are not, however, entitled to immunity from liability under the Eleventh Amendment insofar as the respondents seek in-junctive relief in the form of reinstatement. Dr. Bice and Dr. Richardson, in their individual capacities, are entitled to qualified immunity as to the respondents’ § 1983 claim.

A possible immunity defense does not eliminate a Section 1983 cause of action against a parole commissioner at the leave-to-amend stage.

Moore v. Newton · filed 2016-12-01

As discussed above, immunity is not "relevant to the existence of [PJlaintiff’s cause of action.” ... Furthermore, it is not clear that, when rejecting the CD/ME, the Parole Commissioner was acting in a capacity that would warrant absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose personal liability on local legislators for their legislative votes.

Saboury v. City of Lansing · filed 2017-02-06

Accordingly, it is ordered that individual Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17 ) is GRANTED because the individual council members are protected by legislative immunity from any risk of personal financial exposure for their vote on the ordinance.

Parole officers have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims arising from the imposition of parole conditions, while qualified immunity applies to claims arising from their enforcement.

Seals-Brown v. Llopis · filed 2017-02-23

The district court properly dismissed Seals’ claims for monetary damages against defendants Llopis and McNunn because they are entitled to absolute immunity for the imposition of the challenged parole conditions and to qualified immunity related to their enforcement of those conditions.

Local governing bodies have no legislative immunity from § 1983 suits, and an official-capacity suit against a councilmember is treated as a suit against the entity.

Jefferson Community Health Care Centers, Inc. v. Jefferson Parish Government · filed 2017-02-24

Local governing bodies, such as the Parish and its council, “do not enjoy immunity from suit . . . under § 1983,” Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir.1999), and “an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity,” Goodman v. Harris Cty., 571 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009) ... (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985)).

Local legislators are immune from § 1983 damages for legislative acts, including county budget decisions and decisions about prosecutor office arrangements.

Young v. Mercer County Commission · filed 2017-02-27

We conclude that the district court correctly ruled that the Commissioners are entitled to legislative immunity for denying Mr. Young’s budget request, terminating the Agreement, and ceasing the $350.00 monthly rental payments.

City councilmembers have absolute legislative immunity from § 1983 claims arising from their rejection of proposed legislation affecting city finances.

Arabbo v. City of Burton · filed 2017-05-12

In considering Arabbo’s proposal, the councilmember ... defendants acted in their legislative capacities, and are thus entitled to absolute immunity from suits arising from their rejection of it.

Under § 1983, an officer has qualified immunity when a claimed duty to seek withdrawal of an arrest warrant was not clearly established, and a prosecutor has absolute immunity for deciding whether to seek its withdrawal.

Safar v. Tingle · filed 2017-06-07

Given the absence of an established duty to act, we award qualified immunity to Rodriguez on the § 1983 claims. ... Because a prosecutor’s decision whether to withdraw an arrest warrant is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430, we conclude that Tingle is entitled to absolute immunity.

Local legislators have absolute immunity from Section 1983 damages claims arising from legislative acts, regardless of motive.

Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Shreveport · filed 2018-02-14

The City Council Defendants are entitled to absolute legislative immunity based on their actions in enacting ordinances that allegedly negatively impacted GAI's contract with the City.

Section 1983 claims against state courts and judges may be barred by Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity.

Nguyen v. Franz Miller · filed 2018-02-23

The district court properly dismissed Nguyen’s claims against the Orange County Superior Court, Miller, Moss, and Stafford on the bases of Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against state legislators and legislative staff can be barred by absolute legislative immunity for investigating and voting on a member’s expulsion.

Gamrat v. Allard · filed 2018-03-15

Because the Court concludes that Gamrat's § 1983 claim is barred by absolute legislative immunity and qualified immunity, the Court need not address this argument as it pertains to the individual House Defendants sued in their individual capacities. ... In engaging in the investigation of Gamrat's and Courser's activities, recommending a particular outcome, and voting on Gamrat's expulsion, the House Defendants all engaged in legislative activity.

Section 1983 claims against local officials are barred by absolute legislative immunity when the challenged conduct is a legislative budget vote.

Cincotta v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-05-14

Therefore, all of the individual Defendants are entitled to absolute legislative immunity. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's 1983 claims against the individual Defendants based on the Board's vote to excess his position is granted.

A state court is immune from a Section 1983 suit in federal court, and a prosecutor has absolute immunity for initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution.

Jones v. State of Connecticut Superior Court · filed 2018-05-18

First, the district court correctly determined that both the state court and prosecutor were entitled to immunity.

Section 1983 claims cannot proceed against defendants protected by Eleventh Amendment or witness immunity when the amended complaint gives no basis to hold them liable.

Gomez v. Department of Transitional Assistance · filed 2018-08-07

To the extent his complaint is construed as asserting a claim under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the defendants have both Eleventh Amendment immunity and witness immunity. ... The Amended Complaint does not address the legal impediments previously noted by this court in the July Memorandum and Order. ... He also has not shown good cause why the DTA and the two named employees may be held liable for alleged civil rights violations.

Legislative immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against legislators when the challenged act is an individualized ban rather than legislative activity.

Seum v. Osborne · filed 2018-09-28

Provided that this 12(b)(1) motion presents a facial attack on subject-matter jurisdiction, which mandates the Court to take the facts as alleged as true, the Court finds that the act in question was not legislative in nature and, therefore, Defendants have not carried the burden of establishing legislative immunity.

Legislative immunity bars § 1983 claims challenging a state senate leader’s decisions about caucus membership and the allocation of legislative resources.

McCann v. Brady · filed 2018-11-26

Imagining what would happen if we were to adopt McCann’s position demonstrates why legislative immunity must apply here.

Section 1983 suits against state officials in their official capacities may be barred by legislative immunity when the sole basis for the claim is a legislative act.

Shondel Church v. State of Missouri · filed 2019-01-10

Even if the governor’s appropriation-reduction authority is not shielded by sovereign immunity through Ex parte Young, legislative immunity, a separate defense, forecloses suit against the governor.

A state legislator sued under § 1983 has no legislative immunity for an ad hoc ban on a lobbyist that is neither legislative in form nor substance.

Taylor v. Haugaard · filed 2019-01-25

As in Kamplain and Seum, legislative immunity does not apply to Haugaard's decision to ban Taylor from the House Floor.

State legislators have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for legislative actions.

Nelson v. Does · filed 2019-03-08

Here the defendants are clearly entitled to absolute immunity for their legislative actions.

Zoning board members sued under § 1983 are not entitled to legislative immunity for denying a particular variance application.

Adam Cmty. Ctr. v. City of Troy · filed 2019-04-03

For the same reasons, this Court must conclude here that the Individual Defendants are not entitled to legislative immunity with respect to their decision to deny Plaintiff's variance application.

State legislators retain legislative immunity in Section 1983 actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.

Empower Texans, Inc. v. Geren · filed 2019-05-23

The Supreme Court extended Tenney's holding to apply to "[ Section] 1983 actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief."

Legislative immunity shields an official from a § 1983 claim when the challenged action eliminates a position through a legislative budget decision.

McBride v. McLean County · filed 2019-06-24

Overall, like in Benedix and Rateree, Defendant Wasson’s actions to address the budgetary concerns, which included a reduction in the workforce, led to a decision enforced by the McLean County Board that amounted to legislative action and had the force of law. Accordingly, the removal of Plaintiff’s position was a legislative action rather than an administrative one, and Defendant Wasson is entitled to legislative immunity.

Local legislators are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for legislative activities, including work on a bill to rescind contracts.

Vision Real Estate Investment Corp. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County · filed 2019-09-30

Defendants’ activities related to the bill to rescind the Lease Purchase Agreement and the Second Contract fall squarely within the umbrella of legislative immunity and are, therefore, ... immune from suit.

A § 1983 claim may be dismissed when the defendants are entitled to immunity.

Cameron v. Kolar · filed 2020-01-24

The Magistrate recommended the Court dismiss the case because the Defendants are entitled to immunity. ... IT IS ORDERED that the proposed Findings and Recommendations entered by the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 6) are ADOPTED IN FULL.

A governing body cannot claim legislative immunity from a § 1983 suit based on the acts of its members.

Wilson v. Houston Community College Sys · filed 2020-04-07

Wilson has filed his claims against only HCC, which is not entitled to legislative immunity from Wilson’s § 1983 suit.

Section 1983 claims may be dismissed when defendants are entitled to qualified or quasi-judicial immunity.

(PC) Hafiz v. Yates · filed 2020-04-16

Since defendants are entitled to either qualified immunity or quasi-judicial immunity, plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on officials for legislative acts protected by absolute legislative immunity.

Stone v. Trump · filed 2020-06-12

In their 130-page Complaint, as to the Defendants, President Trump and Senator Blumenthal, Plaintiffs only allege that Senator Blumenthal co-sponsored the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, that President Trump signed the same Act, and that President Trump issued an unspecified Executive Order. Compl. ¶ 46. But these are legislative acts, for which Defendants are absolutely immune from suit.

County commissioners have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on their legislative activities.

D'Amico v. Jefferson County · filed 2020-07-14

To the extent the Plaintiffs’ make claims against the Commissioner Defendants under § 1983 for their legislative activities the commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity.

Qualified immunity and the Eleventh Amendment can bar a § 1983 suit even if a constitutional violation occurred.

Inman v. Dewitt · filed 2020-08-24

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32, because (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit; (2) Plaintiff’s claims fail on the merits at the summary judgment stage; and (3) even if a constitutional violation occurred, the Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity bar Plaintiff’s suit. ... After a thorough review of the record, the Report, the parties’ objections and replies, and the applicable law, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Report in its entirety.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal council members are treated as claims against the municipality and are not barred by legislative immunity.

GREENMAN v. CITY OF HACKENSACK · filed 2020-09-12

However, legislative immunity does not bar Section 1983 suits against municipal committee members in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against county commissioners in their individual capacities are barred by absolute legislative immunity when based on their budgetary decisions.

Mulvaney v. Kane · filed 2020-11-30

Since those decisions are the only ones for which the Covington County Commissioners could theoretically be liable in this case, the motions to dismiss will be granted with prejudice as to the members of the Covington County Commission in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 affords local officials absolute immunity from damages for legislative acts, but a veto aimed at one contractor did not establish that immunity on the pleadings.

Anders v. Cuevas · filed 2021-01-08

Individual members of local governmental bodies, like Sollars, are absolutely immune from suit for damages under § 1983 when conducting “legitimate legislative activity.” ... On the current record, Sollars is not entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not give county board members legislative immunity for jail decisions when the board has not acted through the required legislative process.

Ryan v. Burlington County, NJ · filed 1989-03-06

On this showing, no legislative act has been demonstrated by the Board defendants, and no legislative immunity attaches to the Board’s actions herein.

Section 1983 does not afford county commissioners absolute legislative immunity when they apply existing policy to deny a development permit to a specific applicant.

Crymes v. Dekalb County · filed 1991-02-19

The decision to deny Crymes' application is the application of policy to a specific party. ... Therefore, we agree with the district court that the complaint stated sufficient facts to withstand a motion to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds.

In a Section 1983 action, legislative immunity protects county commissioners from being compelled to testify about their motives while acting as legislators.

Hollyday v. Rainey · filed 1992-05-26

Under the established law of this circuit, however, as both Judges Hall and Butzner agree, the commissioners--and presumably their legislative aides, see Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 616-22, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2622-25, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972)--cannot be required to testify as to their intentions, objectives, and motivations during the time that they served as County commissioners.

Section 1983 affords absolute legislative immunity to county commissioners and their attorney for actions in furtherance of legislative duties.

Ellis v. Coffee County Board of Registrars · filed 1993-01-12

Because we have determined that all actions relating to the removal of the Ellises from the Coffee County voting list by the individual commissioners and county attorney were in furtherance of their legislative duties, these defendants-appellants are entitled to absolute legislative immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against county commissioners in their individual capacities are barred by absolute legislative immunity when the challenged action is legislative.

Racine v. Cecil County · filed 1994-02-01

For this reason, the undersigned finds that the plaintiff’s federal claims against the defendant County Commissioners in their individual capacities are barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity under the law of this Circuit.

County commissioners sued under § 1983 for setting county policies in their legislative capacity have absolute legislative immunity when no personal involvement in the challenged acts is alleged.

Smith v. Copeland · filed 1995-04-25

In the absence of allegations concerning these defendants' personal involvement in the acts complained of, other than by setting the county's policies through their function as elected county legislators, the Court concludes that all claims against defendants Huckstep, Bock and Younghouse are subject to dismissal based on absolute legislative immunity.

Section 1983 gives county commissioners absolute immunity only for legislative functions; directing county maintenance work before commission approval is not a legislative function.

Junior v. Reed · filed 1997-02-20

Applying the federal standard adopted in Harlow v. Fitzgerald to the facts alleged here, we conclude that Commissioner Junior does not enjoy absolute immunity from suit under section 1983. Commissioner Junior's unilateral act of dispatching a county maintenance crew to clean up the Reeds' cemetery before that action was approved by the county commission was not a legislative function, and he is not therefore protected by absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a county may proceed in state court without the county’s permission; county sovereign immunity does not bar them.

Sauls v. Montgomery County · filed 2000-05-18

As another ground in their motion for summary judgment, appellees urged: (1) Montgomery County did not give Sauls permission to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) without such permission, a § 1983 civil rights claim may not be filed in state court; and, therefore, Sauls’s complaint should be dismissed. This argument, which implies the county has sovereign immunity against § 1983 claims, is also without merit.

Section 1983 permits suits against counties, and state-law immunity does not shield them from those claims in state court.

County of Dallas v. Sempe · filed 2004-12-07

A state court entertaining a § 1983 claim must adhere to the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation that counties are “persons” in the context of that section. Accordingly, the County is not immune from the Sempe’s action asserting damages for the wrongful death of their father.

Maryland’s classification of the Baltimore City Police Department as a state agency does not give its commissioner absolute immunity from a § 1983 action.

Blades v. Woods · filed 1995-11-29

We agree with Chief Judge Kaufman’s analysis and hold that appellee is not entitled to absolute immunity from appellant’s § 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on county commissioners for a jailor’s day-to-day conduct when that conduct is beyond their legal authority.

Morrell v. McFarland · filed 1981-12-10

Rather, Plaintiff merely complains of a discrete event in the day-to-day operation of the jail, the control of which is beyond the commissioners’ legal authority. It is readily apparent, therefore, that Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a cause of action under Section 1983 against the county commissioners.

Counties have no governmental immunity from section 1983 claims.

Somerville v. Dallas County Incorporated · filed 2019-08-23

On the other hand, for the county defendants there is no governmental immunity from suit regarding Somerville’s section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not impose personal liability on local legislators for actions taken within the scope of legitimate legislative activity.

Shannon Fredericksburg Motor Inn, Inc. v. Hicks · filed 1977-05-17

This Court is of the view that the sounder rule is to extend the same absolute immunity to local legislators as is enjoyed by state and federal legislators.

Section 1983 suits cannot be maintained against local legislators for their legislative acts because those legislators have absolute federal common-law immunity.

Westborough Mall, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau · filed 1981-11-10

The City and the Councilmen defendants enjoy an absolute federal common law immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the Eighth Circuit in Gorman Towers held the absolute immunity enjoyed by state and regional legislators under Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 99 S.Ct. 1171, 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979) extended to local legislators.

Section 1983 gives local legislators absolute immunity from suit when they act in a traditional legislative capacity.

Goldberg v. Village of Spring Valley · filed 1982-04-20

The acts of the Trustees complained of were the creation of the Department of Housing and Community Development, the transfer of the funds and programs of the Spring Valley Urban Renewal Agency to the Village, and the approval of the appointments of individuals to positions that performed the duties previously performed by plaintiffs. These actions were clearly within the scope of the Trustees’ authority under § 4-412. Further, the steps taken by the Trustees were traditional legislative acts, reflecting policy objectives. None of these acts were executive or administrative. The Trustees are therefore entitled to absolute immunity from suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 gives local legislators absolute immunity from liability for legislative acts when they act in a capacity comparable to state legislators.

Dusanenko v. Maloney · filed 1983-04-05

This Court concludes therefore that members of a town board, when acting as local legislators in a capacity comparable to that of members of a state legislature, are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under § 1983, and that they were so acting in setting the salaries for Dusanenko and Lon-go, or failing to reappoint Maidman.

A local legislator acting in an executive rather than legislative capacity has only qualified immunity from Section 1983 damages.

Cinevision Corp. v. City of Burbank · filed 1984-10-18

We hold that in voting to disapprove all of Cinevision's proposed concerts for the 1979 season, Councilman Richman acted in his executive, rather than legislative, capacity. He therefore enjoyed only a qualified immunity. Because the jury found that he acted in bad faith, we affirm the award of damages against Councilman Richman.

Local legislators are absolutely immune from personal liability under § 1983 when their challenged acts are legislative in nature.

Healy v. Town of Pembroke Park · filed 1986-05-29

We find that under the facts alleged, the Mayor and the Commissioners were acting in a legislative capacity and are thus immune from § 1983 personal liability.

Section 1983 suits against local legislators are barred by absolute legislative immunity when they eliminate jobs through a city budget ordinance as a legislative act.

Bonnie Rateree, Ken Vaughn, William Gardner, Leander Brown, Plaintiffs v. Damon Rockett, Frank Piekarski, Otis Gilmore · filed 1988-07-18

Absolute legislative immunity from section 1983 actions is a judicially created doctrine. ... We are bound by our earlier decision in Reed v. Village of Shorewood, 704 F.2d 943, 952-53 (7th Cir.1983), which held that local legislators are absolutely immune for their legislative acts. ... Employment decisions are not administrative when accomplished through traditional legislative functions.

Section 1983 does not afford local legislators absolute legislative immunity when they apply an existing ordinance to a single development plan in an administrative capacity.

Epstein v. Township of Whitehall · filed 1988-08-22

The individual defendants in such a situation can only be deemed to have been acting in an administrative capacity. Thus, they are clearly not entitled to legislative immunity as to the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.

Local legislators have absolute immunity from Section 1983 liability for legislative actions, but not for administrative or executive acts.

Polenz v. Parrott · filed 1988-09-14

The court concludes that the actions of neither defendant were legislative, therefore, such an absolute immunity does not apply.

Section 1983 allows local legislators to claim absolute legislative immunity for legislative acts when sued individually, but not when sued in their official capacities.

Herbst v. Daukas · filed 1988-12-15

Thus, the doctrine of legislative immunity must extend only to suit against the Town Council Defendants in their individual capacity for acts taken in their legislative capacity.

Section 1983 does not confer legislative immunity on local legislators for executive acts that violate clearly established rights a reasonable person would have known.

O'Brien v. City of Greers Ferry · filed 1989-05-01

Under these circumstances, we agree with the district court that the refusal to appropriate $2,000 at the special meeting was an executive act, not a legislative one. We also find that a reasonable person would have known that such conduct would tend to deprive O’Brien of the clearly established rights of free speech and equal protection. Thus, McKinney and Cosby were not clothed with legislative immunity for their acts at the special meeting.

Local legislators cannot claim legislative immunity from a § 1983 claim for executive acts that violate clearly established rights.

O'Brien v. City of Greers Ferry · filed 1989-06-22

Under these circumstances, we agree with the district court that the refusal to appropriate $2,000 at the special meeting was an executive act, not a legislative one. We also find that a reasonable person would have known that such conduct would tend to deprive O'Brien of the clearly established rights of free speech and equal protection. Thus, McKinney and Cosby were not clothed with legislative immunity for their acts at the special meeting.

Local legislators have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for conduct in furtherance of their legislative duties.

Desisto College, Inc. And Loren E. Horner v. Line · filed 1989-11-15

The existing law on legislative immunity of this Circuit extends the immunity granted by the Supreme Court to federal, state, and regional legislators ... to local legislators.

Section 1983 does not impose individual liability on local legislators for votes taken in their legislative capacity, including a vote to end an investigation.

Sims v. City of New London · filed 1990-05-31

Therefore, the votes of Council members Basilica, Massad, Nahas, and Olsen to terminate the hearing were in furtherance of their legislative function. As such they are shielded from suit by the doctrine of legislative immunity.