42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Burgess v. Morse · filed 2003-04-23

Initially, the Court dismisses plaintiffs claims under § 1983 for money damages brought against defendants in their “official capacities” because the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars such claims.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against a State or state officials acting in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Baker v. Simmons · filed 2003-05-06

At the outset, we note “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Stidham v. Peace Officer Stds. & Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1156 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)). Thus, summary judgment in favor of all Defendants in their official capacities was appropriate as to the damage claims.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against a state official sued only in his official capacity.

VINAGRO v. Reitsma · filed 2003-05-06

Reitsma remains, but only to the extent that DEM may be liable for trespass. He has only been sued in his official capacity and as such is impervious to § 1983 claims requesting money damages.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against officials in their official capacities and damages against them in their personal capacities.

Lewis v. Board of Education of Talbot County · filed 2003-05-07

Count I of the complaint, alleging violations of § 1983 based on a denial of First Amendment rights, survives the motion to dismiss insofar as it states claims for prospective injunctive relief against the individuals in their official capacities and for damages against the individuals in their personal capacities.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal officials are not subject to dismissal solely because they duplicate claims against the municipality.

Capresecco v. Jenkintown Borough · filed 2003-05-09

Here, both Rickard and Geissler also must answer charges against them in their individual capacities, and so dismissing the official capacity claims against them will serve no laudable purpose. Defendants do not argue that the allegations against Rickard and Geissler fail to state a cognizable claim under § 1983; rather, they merely contend that such claims are redundant. This is not a persuasive basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

Under § 1983, an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer is equivalent to a claim against the municipality.

Watson v. Unified Government of Wyan-Dotte County/Kansas City · filed 2003-07-08

However, they named Marinovich as a defendant in her official capacity as Mayor, and, for purposes of § 1983, the official capacity claim was the equivalent of a municipal liability claim against the City.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or state officers sued in their official capacities because the state is not a person under the statute.

Miller v. Egan · filed 2003-08-12

A state, as an entity having immunity under the eleventh amendment to the United States constitution, is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983 and thus is “not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court.” ... This rule also extends to state officers sued in their official capacities.

A state department and state officials sued in their official capacities are not persons subject to damages liability under § 1983.

Pierce v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections · filed 2003-08-28

Neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons” under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity liability when unconstitutional conduct implements a governmental policy or results from a governmental custom; an isolated incident does not establish a custom.

Crooks v. Thomas · filed 2003-10-27

Such liability, pursuant to claims under § 1983, can attach only when the claimed unconstitutional conduct implements or executes a policy or when a constitutional deprivation results from governmental custom.

An official capacity claim under § 1983 must allege a constitutional violation caused by a municipal custom or policy.

Rice v. Helm · filed 2003-11-07

The district court correctly held that (1) this successive § 1983 action cannot be used as a discovery tool for a collateral attack on Mr. Rice’s convictions, and (2) the official capacity claim against the individual defendant fails to allege a constitutional violation caused by a custom or policy of the municipality.

Section 1983 official capacity liability requires a deficient training policy or condoned custom showing deliberate indifference and causing the alleged harm.

Ward v. Knight · filed 2003-11-25

The district court correctly reasoned that Ms. Ward could prevail on her official capacity claim against Sheriff Knight only by proving a "deficient training policy" or an improper but "condoned custom and usage" demonstrating the Sheriff’s "deliberate indifference" to her rights and that one of these "caused" the incident by rendering it a "reasonable probability".

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a State or its officers sued in their official capacities because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Rosario-Urdaz v. Rivera-Hernandez · filed 2003-11-25

The shortest, most direct route to that result evolves out of the fact that neither a State nor its officers in their representative capacities are "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with respect to actions for damages.

Officials sued in their official capacities are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Jackson v. Tom L. Carey R. Papac, Lt. J. Marshall A. Davis E. Padilla Burton R. Lieberman, Doctor · filed 2003-12-24

It is well-established that officials “sued in their official capacities are not ‘persons’ within the meaning of § 1983.” ... Thus, we affirm that portion of the district court’s order.

A state and its officials acting in their official capacities are not persons who may be sued under Section 1983.

Damron v. North Dakota Commissioner of Corrections · filed 2004-01-26

Accordingly, a private individual may not sue a State or its officials in their official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court finds that Damron’s Section 1983 claim against the Department of Corrections and the prison officials in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against state employees sued only in their official capacities; a complaint must clearly state that officials are sued personally to assert personal-capacity claims.

Ligons v. Kroll · filed 2004-03-15

Defendants raised in their answer and summary judgment motion an Eleventh Amendment defense to the damages claims, and we agree with the district court that even giving Ligons’s complaint the most liberal construction, see Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), he failed to sue defendants individually, see Morstad v. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 147 F.3d 741, 743 (8th Cir. 1998) (state employees sued in official capacities are not liable for damages under § 1983); Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997) (without clear statement that officials are being sued in personal capacities, complaint is interpreted as including only official-capacity claims).

Section 1983 official-capacity liability requires proof of a constitutional violation and a jail policy or custom that tolerated it.

Davis v. Adams · filed 2004-04-15

Because Davis’s proof was insufficient to show a constitutional violation, it was also insufficient to hold Adams liable in his official capacity. Davis failed to show that the jail tolerated deliberate indifference to inmates’ medical needs, and failed to show even one instance of a violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not permit damages or declaratory relief against a state or its police officers in their official capacities for past violations.

Wiggins v. Rhode Island · filed 2004-07-22

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks damages or declaratory relief against the State or its police officers in their official capacities pursuant to section 1983, summary judgment is therefore appropriate.

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

Kunze v. Rauser · filed 2004-09-08

As such, Kunze’s claims for monetary damages against the State Defendants in their official capacities are barred the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Celta Construction v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 2004-09-23

Even when state officials act under color of state law pursuant to § 1983, the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary claims against them in their official capacity. ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss any claims against the PRPHA and state defendants in their official capacities insofar as they seek monetary damages.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages suits against a state or its officers in their official capacity.

Witmer v. Powell · filed 2004-11-05

Witmer cannot sue the State, or its officers in their official capacity, for money damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against prison officials require allegations that they acted pursuant to a policy or custom of constitutional deprivation.

Harter v. Budge · filed 2004-12-16

The claims against these defendants in their official capacities were also properly dismissed because Harter made no allegations that the defendants acted pursuant to a policy or custom of constitutional deprivation.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a state or a state official sued in an official capacity because neither is a person under the statute.

Dunston v. Mississippi Dept. of Marine Res. · filed 2005-01-18

Oivanki was sued in his official capacity as an employee of the DMR and CMR, and not in his individual capacity. Therefore the state, as well as Oivanki in his official capacity, are immune from liability under a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 requires a challenged policy to be the moving force behind a rights violation for official-capacity liability; merely enabling the wrongdoer to act is insufficient.

Vantassel v. Brooks · filed 2005-02-01

Instead, Van-Tassel essentially argues that, but for the challenged policies, Brooks would not have been in a position to accomplish his discharge. However, VanTassel’s own allegations suggest that Brooks (or her underlings) disregarded certain policy requirements that would have ensured a fair fact-finding investigation. This theory is insufficient to establish that the policies themselves were the “moving force” behind the alleged First Amendment violation.

A § 1983 claim against a sheriff in his official capacity requires a deprivation of a federally protected right caused by an official policy, custom, or practice.

Perez-Garcia v. Village of Mundelein · filed 2005-02-07

In order to state a claim against Del Re in his official capacity under § 1983, Perez-Garcia must allege that he suffered a deprivation of a federally protected right, and the deprivation resulted from an official policy, custom, or practice.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a sheriff in his official capacity to show that a departmental custom or policy contributed to the constitutional injury.

Merriweather v. Marion County Sheriff · filed 2005-04-05

Since Merriweather is suing the Sheriff only in his official capacity, he is required to establish that the Sheriffs department had a custom or policy that contributed to the infliction of the assault and his resulting injury.

Section 1983 permits a damages claim against a state official in his personal capacity, but Eleventh Amendment immunity bars damages against him in his official capacity.

Khalifa v. State · filed 1986-12-09

Thus, to the extent Khalifa requests damages against Hiniker in his official capacity, the action is barred by the eleventh amendment. Khalifa can recover against Hiniker only in his personal capacity.

State officials sued in their official capacity are not persons subject to damages under § 1983.

Levenstein, Joseph H v. Salafsky, Bernard · filed 2005-07-11

As offi- cials of the University of Illinois, which is functionally the State of Illinois for purposes of § 1983, the defendants were not “persons” who could be sued in their official capacity for damages.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a state or state officers sued in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Acevedo-Orama v. Rodriguez-Rivera · filed 2005-09-12

“The shortest, most direct route to that result evolves out of the fact that neither a State nor its officers in their representative capacities are ‘persons’ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with respect to action for damages. See Will, [491 U.S. at 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304]; Johnson v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 108 (1st Cir.1991).” Id. As such, plaintiffs’ claims for damages against defendants in their official capacities are hereby dismissed.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires showing that the official had final authority to establish policy for the challenged action.

Caudill v. Hollan · filed 2005-12-14

To maintain a suit against Defendant Hollan in her official capacity, Plaintiffs must show that the County Clerk had final authority to establish official policy with respect to the hiring of her deputy clerks.

State officials acting in their official capacities are not subject to suit under § 1983.

Hurton v. Puorro · filed 2006-02-14

Bailey was acting in his official capacity when he entered into the transaction with Sheriffs, Inc.; he is not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against a state official acting in her official capacity.

Dodson v. Norris · filed 2006-02-22

As for the claims against defendant Susan Newbery, in her capacity as Criminal Justice Coordinator for the Arkansas Supreme Court, the district court properly dismissed the claim for monetary damages with prejudice due to immunity, as Newbery was clearly acting in her official capacity.

Section 1983 permits suits against state board members in their official capacities for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Slifer v. Public Employee Relations Board · filed 1990-05-04

Finally, the defendant is the proper party here and the Eleventh Amendment does not render it immune. Plaintiffs have sued the individual members of the Board in their official capacities seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief. This is proper.

Section 1983 requires an official policy, custom, or practice to support an official-capacity claim; respondeat superior does not suffice.

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners · filed 2006-03-06

However, since section 1983 does not recognize the theory of respondeat superior as a basis for liability, in order to prevail on an official capacity claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he or she suffered injuries of a constitutional magnitude as a result of an official policy, custom, or practice. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690, 56 L. Ed. 2d at 635, 98 S. Ct. at 2035-36. Plaintiff has not alleged that either of Sticha’s or Zywczyk’s allegedly retaliatory actions — the reduction in his evaluation points or the delay in promoting a replacement for Farley — was a matter of policy, and his claims against Sticha and Zywczyk in their official capacities necessarily fail.

Section 1983 claims for money damages against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity when the state has not consented to suit.

Calia v. Werholtz · filed 2006-04-12

The State of Kansas does not consent to suit under this statute, and Congress may not abrogate state immunity for section 1983 claims under its Fourteenth Amendment authority. ... In this case, because plaintiffs requested relief is for money damages only, defendants are entitled to immunity for any claims asserted against them in their official capacity. Therefore, summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants on plaintiffs official capacity claims.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state or state officials in their official capacities because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Ferguson v. Georgia Department of Corrections · filed 2006-04-14

And neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983, which provides a cause of action only against “persons” who, under color of state law, deprive an individual of his constitutional rights.

A sheriff acting in her official capacity is immune from section 1983 liability for those actions.

Liu v. Carona · filed 2006-04-17

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Smith because she is immune from section 1983 liability for actions taken within her official capacity as a sheriff.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim requires a federal-rights deprivation caused by an official policy or custom of the municipal entity.

Hesling v. Avon Grove School District · filed 2006-04-18

To establish a § 1983 claim in an official-capacity suit, the plaintiff must show that the defendant personally engaged in deprivation of one of her federal rights and that the “moving force” behind the deprivation was an official policy or custom of the municipal entity — here, the District.

The Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims under § 1983 against state employees in their official capacities.

A.S. ex rel. Blalock v. Tellus · filed 1998-08-19

Plaintiff concedes that the Eleventh Amendment bars her damage claims against the defendants in their official capacities. Therefore the court grants summary judgment as to that portion of plaintiffs § 1983 claim.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires an unconstitutional policy or custom that caused the alleged deprivation.

Blakeman v. Sheriff Leo Kennedy · filed 2006-05-23

To the extent Blakeman’s complaint can be read to sue Kennedy in his official capacity, and assuming Kennedy qualifies as a policymaker, we conclude Blakeman identified no unconstitutional custom or policy which caused him to be denied needed seizure medication.

State officials sued in their official capacities are immune from damages claims under § 1983.

Sharma v. Ohio State University · filed 2001-11-28

State officials acting in their official capacities are immune from suit for damages.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires allegations that the defendant acted pursuant to a government policy or custom.

Burkett v. Wicker · filed 2006-06-14

Here, Mr. Burkett does not allege, and based on this complaint it would not be reasonable to infer, that Nurse Lynne Wicker was acting pursuant to a policy or custom. Therefore the official capacity claim will be dismissed.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a government employee is treated as a claim against the government entity.

Abdullah v. Washington · filed 2006-07-07

Because a claim against individual defendants in their official capacities is properly deemed a suit against the municipality, the Court added the District of Columbia as a defendant.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity liability only when a government policy or custom causes a constitutional injury.

Grayson Ex Rel. Estate of Grayson v. Ross · filed 2006-07-19

Official-capacity liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 occurs only when a constitutional injury is caused by "a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy." ... Because there were no facts supporting a policy or custom of denying care to inmates' serious medical needs, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the official capacity claims.

Section 1983 requires evidence of a custom or policy that deprived the plaintiff of constitutional rights to sustain an official-capacity claim.

Mongeau v. Jacksonville Sheriff's Ofc. · filed 2006-09-15

To the extent that Mongeau is suing the defendants in their official capacity, the district court properly ruled that any such claim fails, because Mongeau did not present any evidence of a custom or policy that deprived him of his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims require an alleged official policy, practice or custom linked to a constitutional violation.

Fox v. Wardy · filed 2006-09-15

The district court did not err in dismissing Fox’s claims against the defendants in their official capacities, because Fox did not allege an official policy, practice or custom that was linked to a constitutional violation.

Section 1983 damages are barred against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Morton v. Hall · filed 2006-10-05

To the extent that Plaintiff is suing defendants in their official capacity, damages are barred.

A school board may be immune in its official capacity from § 1983 claims.

Steadman v. Calhoun County Board of Education · filed 2006-12-28

Moreover, the district court correctly held that the Board was immune in its official capacity from Steadman’s § 1983 claims and that Steadman did not present a prima facie case of discrimination for exercise of his First Amendment right to association.

Section 1983 does not permit an official-capacity suit against employees of private companies that are not state or local governments.

Ellibee v. Leonard · filed 2007-03-15

Additionally, while Ellibee asserts that the defendants did not object to the sufficiency of service of process in their official capacities, the record shows that the defendants were employees of private companies, not a state or local government, so the defendants had no official capacities in which they could be sued.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires a policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional deprivation.

Moore v. Schuetzle · filed 2007-05-18

To hold Warden Schuetzle liable in his official capacity, Moore must establish that a Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation policy caused Moore’s alleged constitutional deprivations. ... Moore has pointed to no policy or custom that caused the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing local jail employees in their official capacities to show that a policy or custom of the entity caused the constitutional deprivation.

Fisher v. Captain Ellegood · filed 2007-06-06

To prevail under § 1983 against that entity, a plaintiff must show that the entity itself was the “moving force” behind his constitutional deprivation, and the only way to do that is by identifying a “‘policy or custom’ [of the entity that] played a part in the violation of federal law.”

Official-capacity liability under § 1983 requires a policy or custom that deprives people of their rights.

Winters Ex Rel. Estate of Winters v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2007-06-29

Additionally, the district court correctly concluded that there was no deliberate indifference to Mr. Winters' serious medical needs, and neither was there a policy or custom to deprive mentally ill citizens of treatment.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity claims against state officials for prospective relief from ongoing federal-law violations, while immunity bars claims seeking compensation for past actions.

Kretchmar v. Beard · filed 2007-07-18

Thus, as explained by the District Court, defendants are immune from all claims except those alleging an ongoing violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, and of appellant’s First Amendment rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires an unconstitutional policy or custom for liability against an official in his official capacity.

Bennett v. Monette · filed 2007-08-08

Alternatively, assuming that plaintiff established such a deprivation, Sheriff Mon-ette will not be liable in his official capacity unless plaintiff can establish that Sheriff Monette’s actions were done pursuant to an unconstitutional policy or custom.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing county officials in their official capacities to show that an official county policy or custom caused the injury.

Cox v. Hartshorn · filed 2007-08-24

Therefore, in order to prevail in an official capacity claim, the plaintiff must show that the county’s official policy or custom caused his injury.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires a governmental policy or custom to have played a part in the alleged violation.

S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving · filed 2007-08-24

When an official is sued in his or her official capacity under § 1983, “the [governmental] entity’s policy or custom must have played a part in the violation of federal law.” Graham, 473 U.S. at 166 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the plaintiffs did not allege that Metro Parks’s policy or custom played any part in why the tapes were erased, the plaintiffs cannot prevail, as a matter of law, in a § 1983 claim against Rankin or Simon in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against county officials in their official capacities are treated as claims against the county board.

Fontaine v. Clermont County Board of Commissioners · filed 2007-09-06

Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs claims against the individually named Defendants in their official capacities are properly construed as being directed solely against Defendant Clermont County Board.

Section 1983 does not permit defendants sued in their official capacities to claim absolute, quasi-judicial immunity.

VanHorn v. Oelschlager · filed 2007-09-26

Therefore, we hold that the defense of absolute,, quasi-judicial immunity is not available to Oelschlager and the Commissioners for claims against them in their official capacities; thus, they cannot seek an interlocutory appeal from the denial of such immunity.

State officials sued in their official capacities are not persons under § 1983, although official-capacity suits for injunctive relief remain available.

Meer v. Graham · filed 2007-10-05

This is true, since state officials in their official capacities are not “persons” who can deprive a party of his rights, privileges or immunities under § 1983. ... This does not affect Meer’s claims for injunctive relief since “official capacity actions for injunctive relief are not treated as actions against the State.”

State officials sued in their official capacities are not “persons” who can be sued under Section 1983.

Mangan v. Brierre · filed 2007-12-07

The action also cannot be maintained because these defendants, in their official capacities, are not “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities when the suit is against an immune state agency.

Chambers v. NH PRISON · filed 2007-12-13

Since each defendant works for the NHDOC, a suit against them in their official capacities is a suit against the NHDOC, which cannot be held liable for money damages under § 1983 because of the immunity afforded state agencies under the Eleventh Amendment.

New York’s lack of consent bars § 1983 claims against a state correctional superintendent in his official capacity.

Murphy v. West · filed 2008-02-06

Plaintiffs claims against West in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which immunizes states and their agencies from suit unless they consent to suit or waive their immunity. ... New York State has not consented to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so state officials sued in their official capacities are protected from damages claims.

Shine v. Hofman · filed 2008-03-07

There is no indication in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Congress intended to abrogate state sovereign immunity, and the Supreme Court has specifically held that Congress did not intend to override well-established immunities such as state sovereign immunity when it enacted § 1983.

Section 1983 liability against a local official in an official capacity can survive only as a Monell claim.

Brown v. County of Cook · filed 2008-04-09

As for Dart in his official capacity (he is not targeted individually in Count I), that potential liability can survive only as a Monell-type claim.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a State or state officials acting in their official capacities.

Nesbit v. Department of Public Safety · filed 2008-06-23

Further, “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ ” subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits personal liability when an official, acting under color of state law, causes the deprivation of a federal right.

Kentucky v. Graham · filed 1985-06-28

On the merits, to establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires that a government custom or policy caused the alleged constitutional injury.

Klebanowski v. Sheahan · filed 2008-09-02

Klebanowski must therefore establish that the deliberate indifference to which he was subjected came about as a result of a custom or policy established by the officials.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a sheriff or other prison official in an official capacity to show that a custom, policy, or practice caused the injury.

PETRIG v. Folz · filed 2008-09-10

In order to sustain a claim against a sheriff or other prison official in their official capacity, Petrig must demonstrate that some custom, policy, or practice caused his injury.

State officials sued in their official capacities are not persons under § 1983.

Short v. Greene · filed 2008-09-22

Based upon the foregoing analysis, the court ORDERS that, with the exception of the analysis respecting West Virginia Code § 25-lA-2(c), the Proposed Findings and Recommendation be, and it hereby is, adopted and incorporated herein. ... The undersigned proposes that the presiding District Judge FIND that the Jail Defendants in their official capacities are not “persons” under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing officials in their official capacities to allege that a government policy or custom played a part in the constitutional violation.

Darryl Pernell Butler v. Prison Health Svcs., Inc. · filed 2008-09-22

Butler also failed to state a claim against the defendants in their official capacities as he failed to allege his delay in treatment was part of a government policy or custom.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against state officials acting in their official capacities.

Roman Catholic Foundation v. Regents of the University of Wisconsin System · filed 2008-12-16

Plaintiffs cannot obtain monetary relief against defendants in their official capacities because state officials acting in such capacities are not liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a damages cause of action against states or state employees sued in their official capacities.

Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas · filed 2009-02-17

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against states or state employees in their official capacities for damages.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against states or state employees in their official capacities.

Sossamon v. Lone Star St Texas · filed 2009-03-17

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against states or state employees in their official capacities for damages.

Section 1983 permits local officials to be held liable in their official capacities when a policy they approved or implemented causes a constitutional deprivation.

Bradford v. Edelstein · filed 1979-02-05

Since the deprivation of Mr. Bradford’s right to due process was accomplished in accordance with PUB’s written policy, and since that policy was promulgated, approved authorized or implemented by the Defendants in this case, those Defendants can be held liable to the Plaintiff for his damages.

Section 1983 permits a damages suit against a county sheriff in his official capacity because the suit is against the county, which is not immune.

Wright v. El Paso County Jail, Sheriff · filed 1981-04-08

The sheriff is not immune from a § 1983 damages suit brought against him in his official capacity, since in essence the suit is against the governmental unit of which the officer is an agent, and the county itself is not immune from a damages suit.

Section 1983 permits a plaintiff to name more than one official in an official-capacity suit alleging municipal liability.

Kennedy v. Hardiman · filed 1988-05-02

The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that naming an official in his official capacity is an entirely appropriate method of alleging municipal liability, ... and this court can find no reason to limit the plaintiff to a single official-capacity defendant.

Guam corrections officials sued in their official capacities for damages are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Laguana v. Ishizaki · filed 2005-05-10

Defendants Crisostomo, Perez, Bamba, San Nicolas, Quichocho and Ishizaki when sued for damages in their “official capacity” with the Department of Corrections are not “persons” under 42 U.S.C, § 1983 thus rendering all defendants immune ... from suit in this regard.

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

Rogers v. Morales · filed 1997-06-09

Each of the Defendants in their official capacity wherein they are sued for Workers Compensation damages, and for punitive damages, are under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution entitled to Sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on state officials sued in their official capacities.

London v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole · filed 2001-03-23

With respect to plaintiffs Section 1983 claim, summary judgment must be granted as to defendant Tillman because the law does not impose damages liability for a Section 1983 violation on an individual acting in her official capacity.

Section 1983 permits official capacity liability when the challenged action follows a county policy or custom or is taken by a final county decision maker.

Cockroft v. Moore · filed 2009-07-28

To prove official liability, he must show that defendant acted in conformance with a county policy or custom when he reassigned plaintiff or that defendant was the final decision maker for the county in personal decisions.

Section 1983 allows an official-capacity claim when an entity’s policy or custom causes a violation of a federal right; it does not impose respondeat superior liability.

Slough v. Telb · filed 2009-08-14

Because there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, to establish an official capacity claim a plaintiff must show that the enforcement of the official entity’s policy or custom caused the violation of the plaintiffs federal or constitutional right. ... At this juncture, these allegations clear the initial “official policy” hurdle for official capacity claims against Defendant Telb, but not for any other defendant.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officers in their individual capacities, but official-capacity damages claims are barred.

Black v. Colunga · filed 2009-08-28

The Eleventh Amendment bars claims against a state brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The Defendants correctly argued that they are entitled to summary judgment to the extent that the Plaintiff has sued them for damages for actions taken in their official capacity. He may, however, proceed against them for damages for actions taken in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity liability only when a government policy or custom causes a constitutional injury.

Hicks v. Norwood · filed 2009-09-18

“Official-capacity liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 occurs only when a constitutional injury is caused by a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.”

Section 1983 does not provide a damages claim against a state or a state employee sued in an official capacity.

Jones v. Alfred · filed 2009-11-30

The same is true for Jones’s constitutional claims. “Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against states or state employees in their official capa- cities for damages.” Id. at 336.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Brown v. Ray · filed 2010-02-26

Thus, to the extent that Brown seeks to sue the defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages pursuant to § 1983, such claims must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities when the state has not waived immunity.

Easter v. CDC · filed 2010-03-09

Easter is correct that he may assert claims against Defendants in their individual and official capacities; however, he may not seek monetary damages from Defendants in their official capacities as a remedy. The requests for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities are actually claims against the State of California.

Section 1983 does not permit official-capacity liability without a deprivation of federal rights.

Penley v. Eslinger · filed 2010-05-03

Absent a deprivation of federal rights, Sheriff Eslinger cannot be liable in his official capacity under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing officials in their official capacities to identify a policy or custom responsible for the alleged misconduct.

Jackson v. Herrington · filed 2010-08-31

That may or may not be the case, but Jackson sued the defendants in their official capacity with respect to this claim, so he must point to a policy or custom requiring or encouraging degrading or sexually harassing searches.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against a state or state officials acting in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

LaPage v. Dennehy · filed 2010-09-09

Further, “neither a State nor a State official acting in his official capacity is a person under 42 U.S.C. §1983.” ... Accordingly, the plaintiffs claims for damages against the Commonwealth and the individual defendants in their official capacities are dismissed.

Section 1983 official capacity claims require evidence that an entity’s policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.

Cochran v. Folger · filed 2010-09-16

Cochran has failed to provide any evidence, let alone identify an issue of fact, as to whether the Sheriff Department’s policies and procedures contributed or caused the constitutional deprivations described above. While Cochran’s constitutional rights were violated, there is no evidence that these violations were the result of a department-wide policy or the product of approved procedures. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their official capacity.

Section 1983 does not provide a damages claim against a state agency or state officials acting in their official capacities.

Hickson v. Associates · filed 2010-09-27

In fact, neither Section 1983 or 1981 presents a cause of action against a state or its officials who act in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not allow money damages against individual defendants sued in their official capacities.

Ford v. Clarke · filed 2010-09-30

Moreover, the DOC defendants are correct that money damages are unavailable against individual defendants sued in them official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against a state, its agencies, or state employees sued in their official capacities.

Williams v. O'Brien · filed 2010-10-25

The State defendants are equally immune under the Federal Civil Rights Act.

Official-capacity claims against municipal officers under Section 1983 are effectively claims against the municipality, and the officers may be dismissed as redundant when the municipality is also a defendant.

Holmes-Ramsey v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-11-02

Plaintiffs claims against the Officials in their official capacities are effectively claims against the District of Columbia.

Official-capacity claims against District of Columbia officials are effectively claims against the District and may be dismissed as redundant when the District is also sued.

A.B. v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-11-02

Plaintiff’s claims against the Officials in their official capacities are effectively claims against the District of Columbia.

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

Irwin v. Phelps · filed 2011-01-21

Hence, defendant, while acting in his official capacity, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

An official-capacity claim under Section 1983 is redundant when the government entity the official represents is also named as a defendant.

Y.S. v. Board of Education of Mathews Local School District · filed 2011-02-07

Accordingly, because Seiple’s principal is named in this lawsuit, claims against Seiple in his official capacity are redundant and should be dismissed.

Section 1983 generally does not permit suits against a state or officials acting in their official capacities, subject to an exception for prospective relief.

Malley v. Farley · filed 2011-07-07

Moreover, “under Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, ‘neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities’ ” are considered persons within the purview of 42 USC § 1983 (id. at 187, quoting Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58, 71 [1989]).

Section 1983 damages claims against Pennsylvania DOC employees in their official capacities are barred by the Commonwealth’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Johnson v. Wenerowicz · filed 2011-07-29

Because the Pennsylvania DOC is a part of the executive department of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its employees share in the Commonwealth=s Eleventh Amendment immunity to the extent that they were sued in their official capacities.

Section 1983 monetary damages claims against officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

Maddox v. Love · filed 2011-08-24

Further, the defendants are immune from suit under § 1983 for monetary damages in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit retroactive damages against a state or its officers in their official capacities because they are not “persons” subject to that liability.

Graves v. Doar · filed 2011-08-30

To the extent that the petitioners seek retroactive relief in the form of food stamp allotments that are equal to those awarded to their counterparts receiving PA, the cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 is barred since it does not seek to conform the future conduct of the State and its officers to constitutional norms, but seeks merely to recover damages from the State to remedy a past violation of law, and the State and its officers in their official capacities are not “persons” within the meaning of 42 USC § 1983 subject to such liability (see Matter of Giaquinto v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Health, 11 NY3d 179, 187, 188 [2008]; see also Matter of Forth, 254 AD2d 836 [1998]; Barresi v Mahoney, 240 AD2d 570 [1997]).

A Section 1983 claim against a sheriff in his official capacity requires evidence that an official policy or custom caused the constitutional violation or injury.

Cyril Zara, Jr. v. Rodney Strain, Jr. · filed 2012-01-13

We agree with the district court that Zara has failed to offer evidence capable of showing that the complained-of policies or customs served as a moving force behind the constitutional violation at issue or that his injuries resulted from the execution of an official policy or custom.

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

Packnett v. Wingo · filed 2012-03-06

Dismissal of Packnett’s claims for damages against state officials in their official capacity was proper under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against states or state employees in their official capacities.

Copeland v. Livingston · filed 2012-03-13

Also, “[s]ection 1983 does not provide a cause of action against states or state employees in their official capacities for damages.” Id. at 335 n.74 (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-67 (1989)).

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

Olney v. Hartwig · filed 2012-03-15

The district court did not explicitly address Olney’s claims against defendant Hartwig in his official capacity, but dismissal of those claims was also appropriate. See Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir. 1992) (the Eleventh Amendment ... bars suits for money damages in federal courts against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (injunctive relief claims relating to incarceration in a former prison were moot where prisoner “demonstrated no reasonable expectation of returning” to the former prison after being transferred).

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

Shulman v. Zsak · filed 2012-06-15

Shulman‟s 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Bivens5 claims against the official-capacity defendants were barred by doctrines of sovereign and Eleventh-Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a state official sued in an official capacity because the official is not a person subject to such a suit.

Johnson v. Epps · filed 2012-06-21

A claim for damages against a state official in his official capacity “is no different from a suit against the State itself,” so the official is not a “person” subject to a damages suit under § 1983.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires facts showing that a specific policy or practice was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation.

Lancaster v. City of Reno, Nevada · filed 2012-07-11

Dismissal of Lancaster’s claims against defendants Skolnick, Helling, and Benedetti was proper because Lancaster failed to allege facts sufficient to show a specific policy or practice that was a “moving force” behind any specific instance ... of deliberate indifference and, thus, failed to state a claim against them.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 must allege facts showing that a specific policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged violation.

Dalcour v. City of Lakewood · filed 2012-08-06

To survive a motion to dismiss, an official capacity claim must allege sufficient facts to show that a specific policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged violation.

In an official-capacity § 1983 suit seeking injunctive relief, a plaintiff may name a state official who can carry out the injunction without alleging that official’s personal involvement in the violation.

Hartmann v. California Department of Corr. · filed 2013-02-19

A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief against the State is not required to allege a named official’s personal involvement in the acts or omissions constituting the alleged constitutional violation.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against a state or state officials in their official capacities.

Brown v. Rhode Island · filed 2013-02-22

Neither the state nor the other defendants in their official capacities are subject to suit for damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit official-capacity liability for a sheriff without an underlying constitutional violation.

Bodden v. Cole · filed 2013-02-25

In the absence of a Fourth Amendment violation, Sheriff Seagraves cannot be liable in his official capacity under § 1983, and we need not address Appellant’s cause of action for municipal liability.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against state officials in their official capacities.

Ames v. Randle · filed 2013-03-18

Therefore, to the extent Ames seeks damages from Defendants in their official capacity, § 1983 does not permit such an action and his action is therefore barred.

Section 1983 bars monetary damages against state employees sued in their official capacities.

Sweatman v. Giles · filed 2013-04-19

However, to the extent Sweatman sought monetary damages against Giles and Rieben in their official capacities, the trial court’s judgment in favor of Giles and Rieben is affirmed because claims for such relief are barred under § 1983.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal employees fail when the plaintiff concedes that the municipality is not liable.

Byars v. School District · filed 2013-04-30

With regard to the official-capacity claims, we agree with Defendants that Plaintiffs concession as to municipal liability bars his claims against the individual Defendants.

Defendants may be immune from a § 1983 suit brought against them in their official capacities.

Shechet v. Doar · filed 2013-05-01

An independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court did not err legally or make any clearly erroneous factual determinations in deciding that, pursuant to Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983), it did not have jurisdiction to review a final judgment of a New York state court, and that the defendants were immune from suit in their official capacities under Dube v. State University of New York, 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir. 1990) and Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).

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

Guardiola v. Rick Thaler, Director · filed 2013-06-18

In support of his motion, Guardiola argues that the district court erred in finding that the Eleventh Amendment barred his claims for injunctive relief against Rick Thaler and Bruce Armstrong in their official capacities. Contrary to this argument, the district court dismissed only claims for damages against Thaler and Armstrong in their official capacities. Such a dismissal was proper.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim against a sheriff when an official policy or sufficiently established custom causes a constitutional deprivation.

Goodman v. Clayton County Sheriff Kemuel Kimbrough · filed 2013-06-21

Instead, to establish liability against Sheriff Kimbrough in his official capacity, Goodman had to prove that he suffered a constitutional deprivation as the result of: “(1) an action taken or policy made by an official responsible for making final policy in that area of the [Sheriffs Department’s] business; or (2) a practice or custom that is so pervasive, as to be the functional equivalent of a policy adopted by the final policymaker.”

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against a state prison or a state officer sued in an official capacity.

Edwards v. CSP-Solano CA1/3 · filed 2013-06-27

Defendant CSP-Solano is an entity of the state and defendant Swarthout was sued in his official capacity as warden of the state prison. Accordingly, both are immune from liability for plaintiff’s claims under section 1983.

State officers acting in their official capacity are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Ellington v. Cortes · filed 2013-07-25

For purposes of § 1983, Cortes, Powell, and Wakowski are not “persons” when acting in their official capacity.

A state trooper sued under § 1983 is immune from damages in his official capacity but may face an individual-capacity claim for actions allegedly taken under color of state law.

Kintzel v. Kleeman · filed 2013-08-19

Accordingly, to the ex tent that the defendant is sued in his official capacity, he will be dismissed from this case. He will remain in the case to. the extent that he is sued in his individual capacity for actions he is alleged to have taken under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state or state officials acting in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Minnis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College · filed 2013-09-18

The United States Supreme Court establishes that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under § 1983. ... Accordingly, Minnis’s claims under § 1983 against LSU and the Administrator Defendants in their official capacities cannot survive, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss these claims is GRANTED.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against an officer may be merged with claims against the governmental employer when both are sued.

Campbell v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-09-23

Where both the employer and an officer in his official capacity are named defendants, it is generally “redundant and an inefficient use of judicial resources” to allow both claims to go ... forward. ... This principle has been extended both to section 1983 claims and claims under D.C. law. ... The Court will therefore merge the claims and dismiss Mr. Turnage as a party.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Mary's House, Inc. v. North Carolina · filed 2013-09-30

To the extent Plaintiffs seek damages from State officials for violations of the FHA or U.S. Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, such claims are barred by sovereign immunity. As explained above, the FHA does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, and section 1983 does not give plaintiffs the right to sue state officials in their official capacities for damages.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages claims against Puerto Rico or its officials in their official capacities.

Caraballo v. Rico · filed 2014-01-07

However, Puerto Rico and its agencies are not considered “persons” under Section 1983, and thus, cannot be held hable for monetary damages in their official capacities. ... Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all Section 1983 claims against the Individual Defendants in their official capacity and against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for monetary damages.

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

Mitchell v. Marshall · filed 2014-03-18

The district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s damages claims against defendants in their official capacities because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Moneyhan v. Keller · filed 2014-03-28

Moreover, Moneyhan is not entitled to monetary damages under § 1983 against Defendants in their official ... capacities.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff bringing an official-capacity claim to show that a municipal policy or custom caused a constitutional violation.

Nichols v. Bourbon County Sheriff's Dept. · filed 2014-06-12

To succeed on an official-capacity claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that his constitutional violation resulted from an official policy or custom of the municipality.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity liability only when a government policy or custom causes a constitutional injury.

James Gladden, Jr. v. Richbourg · filed 2014-07-23

“Official-capacity liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 occurs only when a constitutional injury is caused by ‘a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.’”

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials in their official capacities when those claims are barred by state sovereign immunity.

Banks v. Annucci · filed 2014-09-30

Here, insofar as plaintiff seeks an award of money damages pursuant to Section 1983 against the state defendants in their official capacities, see Compl. at 5, those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Section 1983 does not allow money damages claims against a state or state employees sued in their official capacities.

Kruger v. Nebraska · filed 2015-02-09

“[A] State is not a ‘person’ against whom a § 1983 claim for money damages might be asserted.” ... Because Kruger seeks monetary damages against Nebraska and its employees, Nebraska’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs First, Second, and Third claims against Nebraska and the official capacities of Houston, White, and Kohl will be granted pursuant to the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against state officials requires allegations that a state policy or custom caused the alleged violation.

Aurel Smith v. David F. Martuscello, Jr. · filed 2015-03-10

Because he fails to allege a state policy or custom of deliberate indifference to inmate abuse, his claim was properly dismissed.

Officials sued in their official capacities under § 1983 cannot claim qualified or absolute immunity unavailable to the municipality.

Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona · filed 2015-09-29

First, Plaintiffs are suing the individual Defendants in their official capacities, and therefore they are not entitled to any immunity that the Village does not also possess, meaning they cannot claim qualified or absolute immunity.

State officials sued in their official capacities are not persons subject to liability under Section 1983.

Novak v. Hall · filed 2015-09-30

Defendants acting in their official capacities, moreover, are not "persons” within the meaning of § 1983 and therefore cannot be held liable under the statute.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a sheriff in his official capacity to plausibly allege that a policy or custom of the sheriff’s office caused the injury.

Simmons v. Corizon Health, Inc. · filed 2015-10-06

Because Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that Simmons’ injuries were caused by a policy or custom of the Sheriffs office, Sheriff Barnes’ motion to dismiss will be granted.

An official-capacity claim under Section 1983 against a municipal policymaker does not require that official’s personal involvement in the alleged abuse.

Doe v. Southeast Delco School District · filed 2015-10-13

Here, because Butz is- sued only in his official capacity for his actions as a policymaking official, Plaintiffs do not need to show he was personally involved in causing or acquiescing to the minor Plaintiffs’ abuse.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims for money damages against state officials in their official capacities.

Day v. Gallagher · filed 2015-12-21

To the extent plaintiff seeks damages against the defendants in their official capacities, the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Lewis v. Wetzel · filed 2015-12-21

A state official sued in his or her official capacity is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983 where the relief sought is monetary damages because the Supreme Court has not construed § 1983 as an abrogation of the states’. Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against a state or its officials in their official capacities; the claim against Earley was construed as a personal-capacity claim.

Weinstein v. University of Connecticut · filed 2016-01-22

The section 1983 First Amendment claim is construed to be against only defendant Earley in his; personal capacity. See Will v. Mich, Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71, .109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against the state or its officials in their official capacities).

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Wright v. Lassiter · filed 2016-02-17

We affirm ... and to the extent that he seeks monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from defendants in their official capacities.

A state and its officials sued in their official capacities are not persons subject to § 1983 claims for damages.

Glasgow v. State of Nebraska, etc. · filed 2016-04-08

To the extent Glasgow seeks to appeal the dismissal of her § 1983 claims against the State of Nebraska and the department officials in their official capacities, we affirm the dismissal because such claims do not state a claim under § 1983 and are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment, absent a waiver of sovereign immunity not present here.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Ruiz v. LeBlanc · filed 2016-04-08

The magistrate judge properly dismissed claims for monetary damages brought against defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not treat a state official sued in an official capacity as a person for purposes of a damages action.

Baptiste v. Hopson · filed 2016-04-29

The district court properly dismissed Baptiste’s claims for damages against all defendants in their official capacities because a state official sued in an official capacity is not a “person” for purposes of a § 1983 damages action.

Section 1983 bars damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities but permits prospective injunctive relief against them.

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board · filed 2016-05-09

To summarize our disposition with respect to the 42 U.S.C. section 1983 causes of action, we affirm the trial court‘s ruling to the extent it eliminated any damage claims against the Board or its individual officials or members, but we reverse because a limited basis for relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 exists for prospective injunctive relief against the individual officials or members in their official capacities.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a state official in an official capacity to show injury from a policy, practice, or custom of the government entity for which the official has final policymaking authority.

Saddiq v. Trinity Services Group · filed 2016-08-03

For a state official to be liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff must show injuries resulting from a policy, practice, or custom of the governmental entity for which that individual exercises final policy-making authority.

Section 1983 permits damages suits against state officers in their personal capacities, even when the conduct relates to their official duties.

Flagg v. Int'l Union, Security, Police, Fire Professionals of America, Local 506 · filed 2016-08-23

However, state officers may be subject to section 1983 liability for damages in their personal capacities even when the conduct in question relates to their official duties.

Section 1983 requires a policy or custom to be a moving force behind an alleged violation for official-capacity liability.

Sutton v. Ruiz · filed 2016-09-21

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants in their official capacity because Sutton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a policy or custom of Washington State was a moving force behind the alleged violations.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Holloman v. Clarke · filed 2016-09-22

Holloman sues all defendants in their individual and official capacities. To the extent he seeks damages under § 1983 against defendants in their official capacities, those claims will be dismissed.

For a § 1983 official-capacity claim, the plaintiff must show that a governmental policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged violation.

Howard v. Foster · filed 2016-09-23

In an official-capacity suit, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a policy or custom of the governmental entity of which the official was the agent was the moving force behind the violation. ... Therefore, there are fáctual disputes remaining over whether there was a policy in place of assigning Dicus to oversee Muslim prayers, with the knowledge that he would harass and threaten Howard and other participants, and potentially substantially burden the prayers.

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

J. C. v. Ford · filed 2016-12-23

Accordingly, the Philadelphia Adult Probation and Parole Department and its employees acting in their official capacity are entitled to immunity from damages suits.

State officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to damages liability under § 1983.

Holloman v. Clarke · filed 2017-03-23

To the extent he seeks damages under § 1983 against defendants in their official capacities, those claims will be dismissed. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”).