42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a state through a suit against a state officer in the officer’s official capacity.

Kolton v. Frerichs · filed 2017-08-22

But a lawsuit against the Treasurer in his official capacity is really one against Illinois, and a state is not a “person” suable under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires evidence that a policy or custom caused a constitutional violation to sustain an official-capacity claim.

Shields v. Jones · filed 2017-10-03

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shields’ claims against defendants Padilla and Jones in their official capacities because Shields failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a policy or custom resulted in a constitutional violation.

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

Taek Sang Yoon v. Lee · filed 2017-12-21

The district court properly dismissed Yoon’s claims for damages against defendants in their official capacities because defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff bringing an official-capacity claim to show that a government policy caused a constitutional deprivation.

Ayoubi v. Dart · filed 2018-02-02

On the official capacity claims against Cook County and the other defendants, he was required to identify evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that the jail’s policies caused a constitutional deprivation.

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

Wheeler v. Piazza · filed 2018-02-13

To the extent that Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages, these claims are dismissed with prejudice.

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

Delano v. Holloway · filed 2018-02-23

“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.’” ... Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of any custom or policy of Benton County that was a moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations.

An official-capacity claim under Section 1983 requires a county policy or custom that caused the alleged rights violation.

Waller v. Means · filed 2018-02-27

Under Section 1983, a defendant may be sued in either his individual capacity, or in his official capacity, or in both. ... In the present case, Plaintiff has not alleged that any custom or policy of Union County caused the alleged violation of his rights. Accordingly, his official capacity claims should be dismissed.

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.

Wilmoth v. Sgt. Garner · filed 2018-02-27

“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983.”

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

Tubbs v. Garland County, Arkansas · filed 2018-03-09

To succeed, Tubbs must show that an official policy or custom resulted in a violation of his constitutional rights.

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

Hines v. Hervey · filed 2018-03-26

“It is settled beyond peradventure, however, that neither a state agency nor a state official acting in his official capacity may be sued for damages in a section 1983 action.” Johnson, 943 F.2d at 108. Although the City Defendants did not raise this argument in their motion to dismiss, the claims for monetary damages, as they stand, simply cannot survive.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities because those claims are claims against the state.

Kurtenbach v. Ravnsborg · filed 2018-03-29

In so far as Mr. Kurtenbach alleges defendants, AAG Quasney, Agent Wenande and Director Clark, violated his constitutional rights in their official capacities, the court finds the § 1983 claims for money damages are actually claims against the State of South Dakota.

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

Stevens v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden · filed 2018-04-13

A review of his complaint reflects that the district court did not err in dismissing claims against the defendants in their official capacity for monetary damages.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing county officers in their official capacities to allege a county policy, custom, or practice that caused the violation.

Williams v. Runion · filed 2018-05-30

Although Plaintiff asserts official capacity claims against Defendants, he has not alleged that any policy, custom, or practice of Miller County was the moving force behind his claims regarding the jail’s conditions, grievances, or the opening of his legal mail. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendants in their official capacity.

Section 1983 official capacity liability requires a constitutional violation caused by the employer’s custom, policy, or practice.

Hamm v. Liggett · filed 2018-05-31

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any custom or policy of Dr. Liggett’s employer that contributed to a violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights. Instead, Plaintiff has simply reiterated his individual capacity claims against Dr. Liggett. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s official capacity claim fails as a matter of law.

An official capacity claim under § 1983 requires a constitutional violation committed pursuant to a governmental custom, policy, or practice.

Solomon v. Campbell · filed 2018-06-22

To succeed on his official capacity claim against Defendant Campbell, Plaintiff “must show that a constitutional violation was committed pursuant to an official custom, policy, or practice of the governmental entity.”3 ... Plaintiff does not appear to allege that Defendant Campbell used abusive language pursuant to an official custom, policy, or practice of Miller County. To the contrary, he argues that Defendant Campbell’s allegedly abusive language violated the MCDC’s policies prohibiting such behavior. In light of this allegation, the Court cannot find at this time that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his official capacity claim against Defendant Campbell for abusive language.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim requires an allegation that a government policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation.

Lundahl v. JP Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2018-08-02

Plaintiffs must establish the prerequisite to governmental liability under § 1983 against the state of Utah, the state of Nebraska, Sheridan County Nebraska, Pennington County, South Dakota, and Daggett County Utah: plaintiffs must allege that an official custom or policy brought about the alleged constitutional deprivation.

An official-capacity claim under Section 1983 requires evidence that the employing entity’s policy or custom contributed to a constitutional violation.

Nard v. King · filed 2018-08-15

Here, Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence of any policy or custom of Southern Health Partners, Inc. or Miller County that contributed to a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacity fail as a matter of law.

Section 1983 does not allow a damages claim against state officials in their official capacities because they are not persons subject to suit under the statute.

Ash v. Greenwood · filed 2018-08-30

The vehicle for asserting Ash’s claims in federal court is section 1983. Thus, the defendants, in their official capacities, are not persons who can be sued thereunder.

An official capacity § 1983 claim against a county officer requires a county custom or policy that caused the alleged constitutional injury.

Leyva v. McLellan · filed 2018-09-18

Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of any custom or policy of Washington County that was a moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations.

An official-capacity claim under Section 1983 against a local official requires an alleged policy or custom that contributed to the violation.

Quigley v. City of Huntington WV · filed 2018-09-27

Without any allegation of a policy or custom on behalf of the department, there is no alleged claim against Defendant Talbert in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for money damages against a state, including a state official sued in an official capacity.

Morgan v. Menard · filed 2018-10-12

While money damages may be available in a § 1983 claim against persons in their individual capacity, the state is not a person subject to a claim for monetary damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 official capacity claims require an unconstitutional governmental policy or custom, or an official with final authority who used it unconstitutionally.

Endicott v. Delay · filed 2018-10-19

To establish an official capacity suit under section 1983, Plaintiff “must show…the official named in the suit took an action pursuant to an unconstitutional governmental policy or custom,” or the official “possessed final authority over the subject matter at issue and used that authority in an unconstitutional manner.” ... Consequently, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state an official capacity claim upon which relief may be granted.

Section 1983 does not authorize damages against a state official sued in an official capacity.

Fritz v. Evers · filed 2018-10-23

Section 1983 does not authorize awards of damages against states, and a state official (in his official capacity) is the state.

An official-capacity claim under Section 1983 requires facts supporting an inference that a policy or practice caused the alleged injury, even when the plaintiff relies on his own experience.

Rayford v. Cermak Health Services of Cook County · filed 2018-10-30

But even though Rayford may rely on his own experiences, he must still include some allegations to allow the inference that Dart maintained a policy or practice to cause deliberate indifference to his medical needs, as opposed to his injuries arising from a random event.

Section 1983 requires a government policy or custom to be the moving force behind a constitutional injury for official capacity liability.

Fridline v. Holt · filed 2018-12-10

To state an official capacity claim, Plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of Benton County was the moving force behind the deprivation of his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 permits liability against a private medical provider acting under color of state law only when its own policy or custom causes an actionable injury.

Lewis v. Holloway · filed 2018-12-11

Thus, SHP can be held liable in this case only if “there was a policy, custom, or official action that inflicted an actionable injury.” ... Plaintiff has pointed to no such policy or custom that was the moving force behind the alleged unconstitutional actions.

Section 1983 treats official capacity claims against employees of a private prison medical provider as claims against the provider, requiring proof that its policy, custom, or official action caused the injury.

Kemp v. Correct Care Solution, Inc. · filed 2018-12-13

Thus, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants Vowell and Beasley are “functionally equivalent” to alleging that their employer, CCS, had “a policy, custom, or [took an] official action” that deprived him of constitutionally adequate medical care.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff seeking to hold a county liable to show that an official policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Dillon v. Day · filed 2019-01-18

To establish the liability of an employing governmental entity under section 1983, a “plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation was committed pursuant to an official custom, policy, or practice of the governmental entity.” ... Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege or provide evidence of any policy or custom of Boone County that contributed to the alleged violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, Day is also entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's official capacity claim.

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

Garza v. Helder · filed 2019-01-23

“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 the CNMI or its officials in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Camacho v. CNMI Department of Corrections · filed 2019-01-31

Therefore, the Commonwealth and all official capacity Defendants are dismissed from this case because they are not persons for the purposes of a § 1983 lawsuit seeking damages.

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

Ferris v. Nurse Shawna Hall · filed 2019-02-06

Plaintiff made no allegations in the verified complaint that a custom or policy of SHP/Benton County was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations.

An official capacity claim under Section 1983 requires an allegation that a municipal custom or policy caused the constitutional violation.

Hughes v. Infante · filed 2019-02-07

With respect to Benton County, Plaintiff must allege the existence of a custom or policy that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Plaintiff has made no such allegations. No official capacity claim has been stated.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state official acting in an official capacity.

Madison v. Cruz · filed 2019-02-13

Therefore, Defendant McDonald, in his official capacity, is not amenable to suit for damages pursuant to Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat officials sued in their official capacities as persons when the plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

Painter v. City of MT · filed 2019-03-05

Moreover, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from State officials for violations that allegedly occurred while they were acting in their official capacity. ... Therefore, Benfield and Sperling are not "persons" liable for suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires an official capacity claimant to allege a municipal policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation.

Gross v. Holloway · filed 2019-03-05

With respect to Benton County, Plaintiff must allege the existence of a custom or policy that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Plaintiff has made no such allegation. No official capacity claim has been stated.

Section 1983 did not support official-capacity claims against the state officers in this suit.

Williams v. Glover · filed 2019-03-15

There simply is no cause of action under § 1983 against Defendants in their official capacity and the objection is overruled.

Section 1983 requires evidence of a government policy or custom to hold a municipal officer liable in his official capacity; a conclusory assertion is insufficient.

Robinson v. Ash · filed 2019-03-18

Such a "conclusory assertion of a custom or policy" resulting in a constitutional violation is not enough to establish § 1983 liability against Defendant in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state agency or its employees in their official capacities.

Hunter v. South Dakota Dept. of Social Services · filed 2019-03-25

Section 1983 therefore does not allow Plaintiff to sue the DSS or DSS employees in their official capacity for damages.

Section 1983 does not require a municipality to replace officials sued in their official capacities when the municipality is not already a defendant.

Harris v. Bowser · filed 2019-03-27

While Defendants suggest that this Court should substitute the District of Columbia in place of the four official-capacity Defendants, they identify no reason why it should be done in this case where the District of Columbia is not itself already named as a defendant. Furthermore, Defendants do not argue that the official-capacity Defendants may not be sued. Accordingly, Defendants’ request to substitute the District of Columbia for the four official-capacity Defendants shall be denied.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against county officials as a claim against the county, requiring a county policy or custom that caused the alleged violation.

Dillon v. Moore · filed 2019-04-11

An official capacity claim against Defendants is the equivalent of a claim against the municipal entity who employs them, here Boone County. ... Dillon made no allegations in the verified Complaint that a custom or policy of Boone County was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations.

Section 1983 official-capacity liability requires evidence that a county or contracted medical provider’s policy or custom caused a constitutional violation.

Robertson v. McCormick · filed 2019-05-06

Here, Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence of any policy, custom, or practice of Garland County or SWCMG that contributed to the alleged violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, all Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against them in their official capacities.

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

CARSWELL v. CONLEY · filed 2019-05-07

It is well-settled that neither a state, nor a governmental agency that acts as an “arm of the state,” nor individuals acting in their official capacities as employees of such an agency are “persons” within the meaning of Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state or a state attorney general sued in his official capacity.

Barker v. Utah Attorney General · filed 2019-05-24

Claim One (the § 1983 claim against the State of Utah and the Utah Attorney General in his official capacity) is dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not permit official-capacity liability based solely on respondeat superior.

Thomas v. Harwood · filed 2019-06-07

Plaintiff appears to rely on a theory of respondeat superior against Defendant Harwood in his official capacity, which provides no basis for § 1983 relief.

A sheriff is liable under § 1983 for an employee’s constitutional violation only when it results from the sheriff’s policy or custom, or from an employee whose acts represent official policy.

ANDERSON v. CREWS · filed 2019-06-16

An alternative basis for summary judgment for the sheriff on the federal claim is this: a sheriff, like a city, is liable under § 1983 for an employee’s constitutional violation only if the violation was based on the sheriff’s policy or custom or if the employee is one whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires an unconstitutional policy or custom or an official’s unconstitutional use of final authority.

Hughes v. Infante · filed 2019-07-09

“To establish liability in an official-capacity suit under section 1983, a plaintiff must show either that the official named in the suit took an action pursuant to an unconstitutional governmental policy or custom . . .or that he or she possessed final authority over the subject matter at issue and used that authority in an unconstitutional manner.” Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 433 (8th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff did not allege that Southern Health Partners, Inc. or BCDC had a policy or custom of denying medical care or pain medication to inmates, and the summary judgment record provided no evidence that any such policy or custom existed.

Section 1983 requires an injury caused by an unconstitutional policy or custom to support an official-capacity claim against these defendants.

Bass v. Taylor · filed 2019-07-09

In his amended complaint, Bass again does not allege that he suffered an injury because of an unconstitutional policy or custom of the City of Whiteville, CoreCivic, or Corizon Health. He therefore fails to state a claim against any of these Defendants or employees of these Defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officers in their official capacities are dismissed with prejudice.

THOMAS v. POGORZELSKI · filed 2019-07-10

To the extent Thomas seeks damages from the newly impleaded defendants in their official capacities, such claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials in their official capacities when sovereign immunity has not been waived or abrogated.

Mercado v. Rinaldi · filed 2019-07-11

Accordingly, any claims for damages against the defendants in their official capacities are not cognizable.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages claims against state officials in their official capacities because they are not “persons” subject to suit.

Unthank v. Beavers · filed 2019-07-19

State officials sued in their official capacities for monetary damages are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief.

Chambers v. Cruz · filed 2019-07-19

However, state officials sued in their official capacities for injunctive relief are persons under § 1983, because official capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages claims against state officials in their official capacities.

Hood v. Livingston · filed 2019-07-29

Texas has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Congress did not abrogate that immunity when enacting Section 1983.

State officials sued in their official capacities are protected by sovereign immunity from damages claims under Section 1983.

Shelley v. Stirling · filed 2019-07-29

A suit against a state defendant in his official capacity is construed as a suit against the office itself, and so sovereign immunity precludes such a suit for damages.

An official capacity claim under § 1983 can rest on a custom that conflicts with written policy if the custom caused the plaintiff’s injury.

Toney v. Cash · filed 2019-07-30

A custom conflicting with a written policy can support an official capacity claim. ... Nor does Plaintiff provide any summary judgment evidence to show he was denied mail privileges on multiple occasions sufficient to establish the presence of a custom conflicting with the actual written policy, or that he suffered an injury as a result.

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

Amran v. Cowin · filed 2019-08-02

And, in any event, a state and state officers sued in their official capacity, are not “persons” under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against state correctional employees sued in their official capacities when the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims.

Kelly v. Santiago · filed 2019-08-06

To the extent that Mr. Kelly seeks monetary damages from Defendants in their official capacities, the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims.

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

Collins v. Collins · filed 2019-08-06

It is granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when no exception applies.

Chacon v. Powell · filed 2019-08-09

Because Plaintiff seeks damages from these state officials in their official capacities, and there is no exception to these officials’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court will dismiss the official capacity claims brought by Mr. Chacon under § 1983 with prejudice.

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

CRAWFORD v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2019-08-09

Accordingly, the damages claims against the State and the Department of Corrections and the damages claims against the other Movants, to the extent asserted against them in their official capacities, are dismissed with prejudice.

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

McCoy v. Ferguson · filed 2019-08-13

As both Defendants Endicott and Hale are employed by the State and Plaintiff seeks money damages, they are entitled to summary judgment in their official capacities as well.

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

Goodwyn v. Roop · filed 2019-08-19

Thus, I will grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Goodwyn’s § 1983 claims for money damages against defendants in their official capacities.

A § 1983 plaintiff cannot recover money damages from a state official sued in an official capacity.

(PC) Johnson v. Sherman · filed 2019-08-19

First, Plaintiff cannot receive monetary damages for claims brought against the defendants in their official capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so state officials are immune from official-capacity damages claims unless the state waives immunity.

Oh v. Jarrin · filed 2019-08-20

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against a state official in his official capacity when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Sims v. Figueroa · filed 2019-08-27

Insofar as Sims may be seeking monetary damages from Defendant in his official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit.

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

GREEN v. SLAUGHTER · filed 2019-08-29

However, §1983 claims for monetary damages against a state official in his or her official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim requires factual allegations that the defendant had final policymaking authority.

Bumgardner v. Taylor · filed 2019-08-29

Here, the Second Amended Complaint fails to allege that Officers Hendrix and Ward possessed any policymaking authority whatsoever. Bumgardner’s failure to advance factual allegations demonstrating that Officers Hendrix and Ward are “final policymakers” warrants dismissal of the § 1983 claims asserted against them in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state or state employees in their official capacities because a state is not a “person” under the statute.

Annan v. Benignetti · filed 2019-09-03

Those claims, which were against the state, are not permitted under § 1983 because, as the state correctly argues, a state is not a “person” under that statute.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff seeking damages from a state official to sue that official in an individual capacity.

Lisle, Jr. v. Lawrence · filed 2019-09-03

However, when a plaintiff seeks monetary damages against a state official, he must bring the suit against the official in his or her individual capacity.

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

Vratney v. Precythe · filed 2019-09-03

However, in a claim for money damages, “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” ... Thus, to the extent that plaintiff is seeking money damages, he has failed to state an official capacity claim.

Section 1983 imposes official-capacity liability only when an established policy or custom causes the alleged injury.

Stipes v. Cassidy · filed 2019-09-05

Officials sued in their official capacity are liable under Section 1983 only if they have an established policy or custom that causes the alleged injury.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary relief against a state or a state official sued in an official capacity because neither is a “person” under the statute.

Roberts v. Sinclair · filed 2019-09-06

However, neither a state nor a state official acting in his or her official capacity is a “person” for purposes of § 1983 liability in an action for monetary relief.

Section 1983 damages suits against state officials in their official capacities are barred absent a state waiver or valid congressional override.

Nanney v. Hooks · filed 2019-09-12

Thus, § 1983 suits against a state, its agencies, and its officials sued in their official capacities for damages are barred absent a waiver by the State or a valid congressional override. ... The Amended Complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim can proceed when the plaintiff adequately pleads a policy or practice of retaliation for filing grievances.

Bonner v. Stover · filed 2019-09-19

Further, Plaintiff has adequately pled that punishment of those using the grievance system on their evaluations is a “policy or practice” sufficient to support an official capacity claim.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims require an identified policy or custom that caused the alleged injury; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

R v. Fallin · filed 2019-09-19

Here, Plaintiffs allege in a conclusory fashion that OKDHS’s policies and practices have injured Plaintiffs, but they fail to allege what the policies and practices are or how they have caused injury. ... Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to § 1983 based on the Twombly/Iqbal standard.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity plaintiff to show an underlying constitutional violation caused by a policy, practice, or custom, or by the personal participation of an official with final policymaking authority.

Lance v. Morris · filed 2019-09-20

Plaintiff brings a claim against Sheriff Morris in his official capacity under § 1983 for indifferent training and supervision and for unconstitutional policies or practices to deny adequate medical care. For Plaintiff to prevail, he must show an underlying constitutional violation and that such violation was caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the PCCJC or that an official with final policy-making authority, i.e. former Sheriff Kerns, personally participated in the alleged violation.

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

Williams 225280 v. Woodin · filed 2019-09-23

An official-capacity defendant is absolutely immune from monetary damages.

An officer sued in his official capacity under § 1983 may be immune from monetary damages.

Athey v. Thomas · filed 2019-09-25

... ORDERED that the Defendant Sgt. Chandler’s motion for summary judgment (docket no. 65) is GRANTED as to his claim of immunity from monetary damages against him in his official capacity.

Section 1983 official-capacity liability requires an official policy or custom that caused the deprivation of a constitutional right.

Treece v. State of Louisiana · filed 2003-07-22

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in his official capacity is without merit because he has failed to identity an official policy or custom which caused the deprivation of a constitutional right.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity liability when an official’s policy is the moving force behind a violation of federal rights.

Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 2019-09-27

Specifically, because the policy does not clearly define what constitutes “denial,” the policy itself is potentially the moving force behind a failure to provide Disability Waiver services with “reasonable promptness.” Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant may be held liable in her official capacity.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim against a government official when an entity’s policy or custom causes a constitutional deprivation.

Davalos v. Morgan · filed 2019-09-29

A governmental entity can be held liable under § 1983 if an “officially executed policy, or the toleration of a custom within [it] leads to, causes, or results in the deprivation of a constitutionally protected right.” Doe v. Claiborne Cty., Tenn. By & Through Claiborne Cty. Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 495, 507 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)). Here, Plaintiff has named the Director of the Ohio Department of Safety in his official capacity. “Official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n. 55. Therefore, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Director is a proper party to this case.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Nolan v. Clarke · filed 2019-10-04

Claims for money damages brought against defendants in their official capacities are not cognizable in § 1983 lawsuits because neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a state official sued only in her official capacity as a person subject to suit.

Saunders v. Hall-Long · filed 2019-10-04

Dismissal of the claims against her is proper because “[n]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”

Section 1983 permits a government official responsible for carrying out injunctive relief to remain as an official-capacity defendant.

Daniel v. Baldwin · filed 2019-10-04

Warden Jeff Dennison shall remain a defendant, in his official capacity, only for the purposes of implementing any injunctive relief that is ordered.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against a state official in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Alton v. Robinson · filed 2019-10-07

Insofar as Alton may be seeking ... monetary damages from Defendant Robinson in his official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit.

Section 1983 official-capacity liability requires a constitutional deprivation caused by an official policy or custom; failure to follow an existing policy alone is insufficient.

Murphy v. Falcon · filed 2019-10-08

Because Plaintiff’s claims against Sheriff Falcon and Warden Rodrigue in their official capacities are based on a violation of a policy, rather than an unconstitutional deprivation motivated by an existing policy, Plaintiff has failed to state a proper official-capacity claim against either Sheriff Falcon or Warden Rodrigue.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity defendant who can carry out injunctive relief to be added for that purpose.

Thomas v. Weaver · filed 2019-10-15

Accordingly, the Court adds Deanna Brookhart, warden of Lawrence Correctional Center (official capacity only), as a defendant for the sole purpose of carrying out any injunctive relief that is ordered.

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

Whitfield v. College of Charleston · filed 2019-10-23

Nevertheless, McConnell and Roberts could only have provided Whitfield an opportunity to grieve his termination in their official capacities at the College, and an individual acting in his official capacity is not subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officers or employees sued in their official capacities.

Baptiste v. Griffin · filed 2019-10-31

Section 1983 claims against Defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed because a Plaintiff cannot sue a state officer or employee in his or her official capacity for monetary damages under § 1983.

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

Graham v. Korte · filed 2019-11-01

To state a claim against a municipality or a municipal official in his or her official capacity, plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of the government entity is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. ... The Court thus finds no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether there was a policy or custom of unconstitutional misconduct by Defendant Korte, and summary judgment in favor of Defendant Korte in his official capacity is warranted.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against employees of a private prison medical contractor require an alleged injury caused by the contractor’s custom or policy.

Mallory v. Bolton · filed 2019-11-06

In the instant case, Plaintiff does not claim that any alleged violation of his constitutional rights was the result of a custom or policy implemented or endorsed by the private entity that ostensibly employs the Medical Defendants. As such, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s official- capacity claims against these Defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim challenging a state law cannot proceed against an official who has no particular duty to enforce that law.

Morris v. Livingston · filed 2014-01-10

Section 501.063 does not specially task Governor Perry with its enforcement, or suggest that he will play any role at all in its enforcement. As a result, Governor Perry is not a proper defendant.

Official-capacity immunity bars a damages claim under § 1983.

Tate v. Bryan Parks · filed 2019-11-12

To sum up, we affirm the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment on Tate’s access-to-courts claim and her determination that Parks, in his official capacity, is immune from a suit for damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 damages claims against the VDOC and defendants sued in their official capacities are barred by immunity in federal court.

DePaolis v. Virginia Department of Corrections · filed 2019-11-13

The VDOC and the moving defendants in their official capacities are protected by immunity against damage claims in federal court.

Eleventh Amendment immunity can bar § 1983 claims against state employees sued in their official capacities.

Donald Ingle, Jr. v. Pam Pace · filed 2018-12-10

The district court also correctly held that Ingle’s claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity to the extent that he was suing the defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a state officer sued in an official capacity when the Eleventh Amendment bars recovery.

Flores v. Moser · filed 2019-03-07

The R&R correctly noted that the Eleventh Amendment bars recovery of damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state officer in his or her official capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Roscoe v. Bentley · filed 2019-11-22

As a preliminary matter, defendants correctly note that Roscoe cannot obtain money damages from the defendants in their official capacities under § 1983. ... Thus, the court will grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Roscoe’s § 1983 claims against defendants in their official capacities for money damages.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a state official sued in her official capacity.

Watkins 704896 v. Washington · filed 2019-12-02

An official-capacity defendant is absolutely immune from monetary damages.

Section 1983 does not permit the official-capacity damages claim against the jail officer in this case.

Brown v. Brown · filed 2019-12-02

Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Joseph Brown seeking damages in his official capacity is dismissed and Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Tribbles is dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities cannot obtain declaratory or injunctive relief for a past violation that is no longer ongoing.

Jackson v. Moochie · filed 2019-12-03

To the extent Mr. Jackson seeks declaratory or injunctive relief against Officers Moochie and Wells in their official capacities, such claims cannot proceed. This Eighth Amendment claim, based on an isolated incident from June 27, 2019, is not alleged to be an ongoing issue.

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

Campbell v. Lantz · filed 2019-12-12

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks damages from state officials in their official capacity, his section 1983 claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and will be dismissed.

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

Slaughter v. Escamilla · filed 2019-12-12

It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 107) is denied, except insofar as Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from Defendants in their official capacities.

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

Houston v. McKinney · filed 2019-12-17

Because the State of Missouri is not a § 1983 person, plaintiff’s official capacity claims against state employees Crews and Savage must be dismissed.

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

(PC) Koch v. Ahlin · filed 2019-12-20

Plaintiff may not bring a suit for damages against Defendants in their official capacities.

An official-capacity claim under Section 1983 must allege that an official policy or custom was the moving force behind the deprivation.

Steepleton v. Green · filed 2019-12-20

Plaintiff fails to state an official capacity claim against Officer Green; there are no allegations that an official policy or custom was the moving force behind Green’s alleged actions.

Section 1983 claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief may proceed against a proper official-capacity defendant; redundant official-capacity defendants may be dismissed.

Jenkins v. Pritzker · filed 2019-12-23

As Plaintiff only seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, the Court finds that the proper defendant is J.B. Pritzker (in his official capacity only).

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

HINES v. MICKENS · filed 2019-12-27

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting the first motion (Doc. 21) because (1) Hines cannot recover any official capacity damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (2) Hines failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing this action pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). ... For the foregoing reasons, the Recommendation (Doc. 45) is ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court.

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

Johns v. Messer · filed 2020-01-17

Defendants correctly note that Johns cannot obtain money damages from defendants in their official capacities under § 1983, which is the vehicle for his claims.

Section 1983 official capacity liability based on an unconstitutional custom requires evidence that the custom caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Jones v. Vowell · filed 2020-01-17

The Court agrees with Judge Bryant that Plaintiff has failed to put forth evidence of an unconstitutional custom that was the moving force behind Defendants’ alleged constitutional violations.

Section 1983 official-capacity liability requires a policy or custom that causes the alleged constitutional violation; inadequate hiring, training, supervision, or retention must amount to deliberate indifference.

Cloud v. Stone · filed 2020-01-23

However, Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence of inadequate hiring, training, supervision, or retention amounting to deliberate indifference, or that any such policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations.

Section 1983 does not provide for damages claims against state agencies or state officials sued in their official capacities.

GITTENS v. BONDS · filed 2020-02-04

It is well-established that § 1983 does not provide for damages claims against state agencies or state officials in their official capacities.

A state employee is immune from a Section 1983 suit in her official capacity.

Carmichael v. Dunn · filed 2020-02-05

Accordingly, defendant Mixon, employed by the State of Alabama at the time, is immune from suit in their official capac- ities.

Section 1983 requires a municipal custom or policy that caused the violation for an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer.

Stonick v. Westport · filed 2020-02-07

Stonick does not allege that DelVecchio violated Stonick’s rights as a result of a custom or policy of the Westport Police Department and accordingly DelVecchio is entitled to summary judgment on any official capacity claim Stonick asserts for a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities, but official-capacity damages claims against them cannot be maintained in federal court.

(PC) Rogers v. Warden · filed 2020-02-11

Plaintiff's official capacity claim for damages is dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 allows damages claims against state officials in their personal capacities, but the Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against them in their official capacities.

Whatley v. Valdovinos · filed 2020-02-11

Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds only to the extent that Plaintiff seeks damages against him in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state official sued in an official capacity is immune from damages unless the state waives immunity.

Fraser v. Caribe · filed 2020-02-11

Section 1983 did not abrogate state sovereign immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 338–45 (1979), and Fraser has set forth no facts suggesting that Connecticut has waived immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against these defendants when they are sued only in their official capacities.

Smith v. Dunleavy · filed 2020-02-14

First, to the extent that the proposed amended complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the Hodges, such a claim is futile under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 inasmuch as the defendants are sued in their official capacities, not individually.

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

Reese 669959 v. Bolm · filed 2020-02-19

An official-capacity defendant is absolutely immune from monetary damages. ... Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief against the Defendants in their respective official capacities.

Section 1983 does not treat a state or its officials sued in their official capacities as persons.

Sullivan v. Austin · filed 2020-02-24

“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Jd. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against a state agency or state officials in their official capacities.

Kiser v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab & Corrections · filed 2020-02-28

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, he cannot proceed with his claims against the ODRC or any of the Defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officials for actions taken in their official capacity because they are not “persons” under the section.

Wagschal v. Skoufis · filed 2020-03-03

A plaintiff may not recover monetary damages for actions taken by government actors in their official capacity. That is because the Supreme Court has held that “neither a State nor its officials are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”

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

Cissell v. Windham · filed 2020-03-06

“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” ... As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so claims for damages against state officials in their official capacities require a waiver of that immunity.

Thomas v. Aldi · filed 2020-03-09

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 343 (1979), and Mr. Thomas has alleged no facts suggesting that the State of Connecticut has waived this immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities when the state has not consented and Congress has not abrogated its immunity.

Hinton v. Amonette · filed 2020-03-12

As relevant here, the Commonwealth of Virginia has not consented to suits under § 1983, and Congress has not abrogated the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Eleventh Amendment immunity for § 1983 cases.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim against a county deputy to allege that the deputy acted pursuant to a county ordinance or policy.

Willoughby v. Harger · filed 2020-03-12

The court agrees with the magistrate judge that the complaint does not assert a viable claim against Deputy Harger in his official capacity, as it is not alleged that Deputy Harger acted pursuant to a Pickaway County ordinance or policy.

Section 1983 does not authorize damages claims against state employees in their official capacities.

Love v. Stateville Correctional Facility · filed 2020-03-13

Baldwin, Meeks, and Hinton are employees of an Illinois state agency, and section 1983 does not authorize a suit for damages against them in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state official in an official capacity because the official has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Clark v. Chillicothe Correctional Institution · filed 2020-03-13

A suit against a state official in his or her official capacity for damages cannot be maintained pursuant to § 1983 because that official has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim against an official who enforces a challenged policy, even if the official believes state law requires it.

Nashville Community Bail Fund, The v. Gentry · filed 2020-03-17

Gentry’s argument that he is only enforcing a state law is, simply put, not a defense in any way to his being named as a defendant in this case.

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

Conley v. Aldi · filed 2020-03-23

Because these Defendants, in their official capacities, are not “persons” under § 1983, Mr. Conley’s claims for damages against them in their official capacities will be dismissed.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a local official is treated as a claim against the municipality and fails without an underlying constitutional violation.

Morris v. Cradduck · filed 2020-03-30

Likewise, Morris’s claims against the defendants in their official capacities, which are treated as claims against the municipality, fail for lack of a constitutional violation.

Section 1983 imposes official-capacity liability on a local government official only when a government policy or custom causes the injury.

GLADDEN v. SETTLES · filed 2020-03-31

With respect to local government officials, official capacity liability attaches under Section 1983 only if “execution of 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, inflicts the injury.” ... Plaintiff has not stated a claim against Defendant in his official capacity, and the Court will thus dismiss that aspect of Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages claims against a state or a state official sued in an official capacity.

Davis v. Ranas · filed 2020-04-15

A § 1983 action for money damages cannot be properly brought against the state or a state official acting in their official capacity.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim for money damages against a state because a state is not a “person” under the statute.

Tompkins v. Moritz · filed 2020-04-20

As to plaintiff's official capacity claim, the claim is actually against the State of Missouri, Officer Moritz’s employer. However, a state is not a “person” for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for money damages.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not persons subject to suit under the statute.

Welte v. McKinley · filed 2020-04-23

State officials sued in their official capacities for money damages are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim requires an employer policy or custom responsible for the alleged constitutional violation.

Johnson v. Baetz · filed 2020-04-29

To state a claim against a government official in his or her official capacity, plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of the employer is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation.

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

Pasaye v. State of Nevada, ex rel · filed 2020-05-01

Because the defendants in their official capacities are not persons for § 1983 purposes, Pasaye’s federal claims against them fail and I dismiss them from this lawsuit.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a sheriff requires a policy or widespread custom that caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Scott v. State of Louisiana · filed 2020-05-04

However, Scott’s Complaint does not allege sufficient facts needed for the Court to plausibly infer that a custom or practice existed that gave rise to the purported violations of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Further, assuming in arguendo that Officer Robbins and the Nelson Coleman Correctional Center deputies violated Scott's constitutional rights, Scott has nonetheless failed to allege that those violations resulted from or were caused by a policy or custom of the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office. Accordingly, Scott’s claims against Sheriff Champagne in his official capacity are dismissed.

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

Adell v. Waterman · filed 2020-05-06

But a state is not a “person” against whom Plaintiff may recover monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim to plausibly allege a policymaker, an official policy, and a constitutional violation caused by that policy or custom.

Johnson v. Gusman · filed 2020-05-13

To state § 1983 claims against that entity, the plaintiffs must plead facts that plausibly establish (1) a policymaker, (2) an official policy, and (3) a violation of constitutional rights whose “moving force” is the policy or custom.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary relief against a state or state officials acting in their official capacities because they are not persons under the section.

Leroy v. Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc. · filed 2020-05-19

As an initial matter, and as defendants correctly argue, to the extent plaintiff seeks monetary relief from these defendants in their official capacities in this § 1983 suit, such claims must be dismissed; neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” for the purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim against an entity to plausibly allege that the entity’s custom or policy caused a violation of federal rights.

Hull, Jr v. Centurion Detention Health Services (TV1) · filed 2020-05-19

Thus, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983 as to any Defendant as filed.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a local government through an official-capacity claim to allege a policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation.

Matthews v. Leclerc · filed 2020-05-20

The well-traveled Monell doctrine requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an official “policy or custom” was the “the moving force of the constitutional violation.” Vineyard v. County of Murray, Ga., 990 F.2d 1207, 1211 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981)). Here allegations relating to that policy are lacking entirely. Accordingly, any claims brought by Plaintiff against the Defendant in her official capacity must be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity from official-capacity suits.

Wood v. Cavello · filed 2020-05-21

While a state may lose its immunity by Congressional abrogation or by waiver, Congress did not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A Section 1983 official-capacity claim requires allegations of final policymaking authority or facts showing that an official policy or custom caused the injury.

Nicholes v. Jano · filed 2020-05-22

Here, Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege any official capacity claims against Defendants because he has failed to allege (1) that the Defendants possessed any final policymaking authority, or (2) any facts to demonstrate that an official policy or custom caused his injuries. Consequently, the motions to dismiss are granted as to this argument, and the official capacity ... claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not treat a state or its officials acting in their official capacities as persons subject to damages claims.

Carper v. State of Nebraska · filed 2020-06-03

“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” ... Defendants are immune from suit for damages, and the court must abstain from considering Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires a policy or custom that was a moving force behind the alleged deprivation of rights.

Revak v. Miller · filed 2020-06-05

Considering defendant Sheriff Miller’s alleged response to plaintiff’s complaints as a whole, plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that defendant Sheriff Miller established a policy or custom that was a moving force behind her alleged discrimination.

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

Hoskins v. Swisher · filed 2020-06-08

State officials named in their official capacities may not be sued for monetary damages in federal court.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim in federal court against a state agency through a suit against its employees in their official capacities.

Williams v. Ferguson · filed 2020-06-10

That said, these official capacity claims are construed as civil rights claims against the Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC). ... However, “as an agency of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the KDOC is not subject to suit for money damages under § 1983 in federal court.” ... Thus, the Court will dismiss, with prejudice, Williams’s claims for money damages against the NTC employees in their official capacities.

A state official who controls and can undo the challenged conduct is a proper defendant to a § 1983 claim for prospective relief under Ex parte Young.

Attwood v. Charles W. Clemons, Sr. · filed 2020-06-11

Mr. Attwood has alleged that Representative Clemons controls and maintains the Twitter and Facebook accounts at issue, made the (allegedly unconstitutional) decision to block him, and has the power to unblock him. Representative Clemons, who does not deny that he has control over the social media accounts and the power to unblock Mr. Attwood, is therefore a proper defendant under Ex parte Young for Mr. Attwood’s § 1983 claim.

An official-capacity claim under Section 1983 is treated as a claim against the public employer, which is liable only when an unconstitutional policy or custom causes the violation.

Laughlin v. Stuart · filed 2020-06-15

Furthermore, to the extent Lewis sues Brott in his official capacity under Section 1983, his suit must be construed as merely a suit against the public employer, which may only “be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its officials or employees when those acts implement or execute an unconstitutional policy or custom of the subdivision.” Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999). Lewis has not identified any unconstitutional policy or custom of Sherburne County that led to the problems that he identified with his phone access.

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

Cook v. Lockhart · filed 2020-06-22

As discussed above, to the extent that plaintiff is seeking damages, he cannot maintain a claim against the State of Missouri, because the State is not a “person” for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 purposes.