42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not permit a facial challenge to a state statute against a judge who applies it solely in an adjudicatory capacity.

Bauer v. State of Texas · filed 2003-08-28

Therefore, because determinations made under section 875 are within a judge's adjudicatory capacity, there is no adversity between Bauer and Olsen as to whether section 875 is facially unconstitutional. As such, there is no case or controversy under Article III and Olsen is not a proper party under section 1983.

A state is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 claim.

Guttman v. Khalsa · filed 2003-09-15

With regard to Plaintiffs claims under, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the State of New Mexico is not a proper Defendant.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state university because it is part of the state, which is not a “person” under the statute.

Williamson v. Indiana University · filed 2003-09-23

As for IU itself, Williamson’s civil rights claim is doomed by the fact that state universities are entities that are considered part of the state for § 1983 analysis. ... No cognizable claim under the civil rights statutes can be brought against a state, because it is not a “person” for purposes of those provisions.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state university because the university is part of the state, which is not a “person” under the statute.

Williamson, Caroline v. Indiana University · filed 2003-09-23

No cognizable claim under the civil rights statutes can be brought against a state, because it is not a “person” for purposes of those provisions.

A state is not a “person” who may be sued under § 1983.

Williams v. Kansas · filed 2003-10-02

The State of Kansas is not considered a “person” and is therefore not a proper § 1983 defendant.

Section 1983 does not permit a civil rights claim against a state.

Greene v. Rhode Island · filed 2003-10-31

As an initial matter, the State cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state entities.

Walker v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System · filed 2004-01-07

However, plaintiffs may not sue state entities for damages under § 1981 or § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state because a state is not a “person” within its meaning.

King v. Willis · filed 1971-11-02

Despite the fact that the State of Delaware is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is not subject to suit under the Civil Rights Act, Fear v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 413 F.2d 88 (C.A.3, 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 935, 90 S.Ct. 278, 24 L.Ed.2d 234 (1969); United States ex rel. Gittlemacker v. County of Philadelphia, 413 F.2d 84, 86 (C.A.3, 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 1046, 90 S.Ct. 696, 24 L.Ed.2d 691 (1970), the Court is nevertheless satisfied that adequate parties are now before the Court to proceed with the determination of this case.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because a state agency is not a “person” under the statute.

Bigelow v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources · filed 1989-12-13

Section 1983 applies to “persons” only. “Persons” as used in the statute does not include the state or its agencies. ... Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is granted.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state agency because the agency is not a person under the statute.

Johnson v. Charles O. Walgreen, Leroy H. Johnson v. Stanley Goldstein · filed 1992-12-07

As an "arm of the state", the Board is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983 and shares the Commonwealth's immunity from suit for damages.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state department because it is not a person within the meaning of the statute.

Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation v. Town of Ludlow Zoning Board · filed 2004-10-20

In any event, assuming that his claim is properly preserved, it cannot lie against the Department, which is not a “person” within the meaning of the statute.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or state agency because neither is a “person” under the statute.

Davis v. Bruce · filed 2005-04-06

This determination was correct, as a state or a state agency is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit nominally against state officers when the requested restoration of salary and employment rights would make it a suit against the State, which is not a person under the section.

Marx v. Cuomo · filed 1987-03-12

Finally, Special Term’s finding that plaintiffs did not state claims under 42 USC § 1983 was correct. Special Term reasoned that the suit, nominally against individual State officers, was in reality against the State, since any payments would come from the State, and the State is not a "person” under 42 USC § 1983. As the complaint in the suit at bar requests only restoration of salary and employment rights, it is "in reality” against the State and the dismissal of the suit, even though it was nominally against the individual defendants, was proper (see, Cullen v New York State Civ. Serv. Commn., 435 F Supp 546, 557-558, appeal dismissed 566 F2d 846).

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against state entities.

Burks v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation · filed 2005-05-11

However, plaintiff may not sue state entities for damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state commission that is an arm of the state.

East West Resort Transportation, LLC v. Sopkin · filed 2005-06-03

Because I have determined the Commission to be an arm of the state and, thus, immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, I also conclude that § 1983 does not apply to it.

Section 1983 does not permit a state-court suit against a state or a state official acting in an official capacity because the state is not a person under the statute.

CLIENT a v. Yoshinaka · filed 2005-08-08

Section 1983 suits may not be brought in state court against the state or against a state official acting in his or her official capacity because a state is not a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not authorize claims against states or state agencies because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Bryant v. Military Department of Mississippi Ex Rel. Mississippi Air National Guard · filed 2005-08-26

In addition, Bryant’s claims under §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 are barred for the further reason that these statutes create rights solely against “persons” and a state is not considered a “person” under these statutes.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a state agency because the agency is not a person under the statute.

Sherez v. State of Hawai'i Department of Education · filed 2005-09-01

The Supreme Court has held that neither a state agency nor a state official is a "person” under § 1983. ... The defendants, therefore, are not subject to liability under § 1983 even absent their Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against states or their agencies because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Davis v. Standifer · filed 2005-10-11

Davis’ contention is clearly without merit with respect to GSP and DPS, since the state and its agencies are not “persons” subject to suit for damages under 42 USC § 1983.

A state agency is not a person that may be sued under § 1983.

Witte, Gerhard v. WI Dept Corrections · filed 2006-01-23

The first is substantive: he has sued the Wisconsin Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but it is well established that the “state,” which the DOC is for this purpose, is not a “person” that may be sued under that statute.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or its department of corrections because neither is a “person” under the statute.

Andreola, Daniel M. v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2006-02-22

Neither the State of Wisconsin nor the State’s Department of Corrections is a proper defendant. Neither is a “person” for purposes of §1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states or their agencies because they are not persons under the statute.

Harris v. New York State Education Department · filed 2006-03-06

Because states and their agencies are not persons subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“ § 1983”), Harris’s § 1983 claims against the State must be dismissed.

Section 1983 permits declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials in their individual capacities even when they are performing statutory duties.

Clajon Production Corp. v. Petera · filed 1995-11-20

As to the second argument, we reject it because Ex parte Young clearly provides that state officials can be sued in their individual capacities — even if merely performing clear statutory duties — for injunc-tive and declaratory relief.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency.

Donnie Lair v. Norris · filed 2002-04-03

Further, Lair’s claims against the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), ADC Director Larry Norris and Deputy Director G. Guntharp, Tucker Maximum Security Unit (MSU) Assistant Warden Steve Outlaw, and MSU Correctional Officers Richard Wimberly and Jimmy Via were properly dismissed. See Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1010 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (§ 1983 suit cannot be brought against state agency), cert. dismissed, 529 U.S. 1001 (2000); Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (supervisory liability).

Section 1983 permits a claim against a state commissioner administering a statutory aid limit even when state law prevents him from paying more.

McMillan v. Board of Education of New York · filed 1970-08-03

There is indeed some difficulty in conceiving that a state officer “subjects” a citizen to the deprivation of constitutional rights within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act when he is not taking action against the citizen but simply is unable to pay him more than a state statute allows, and this seems rather a long way from what the Reconstruction Congress could have *1149had in mind. But the Supreme Court evidently does not regard the point as even meriting discussion.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state court because it is a state entity.

Sieverding v. American Bar Ass'n · filed 2006-07-17

Because Routt County Court is a state entity not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court concludes that the plaintiffs fail to state a claim against defendant Routt County Court.

A state corrections department is not a person that may be sued under § 1983.

Hix v. Tennessee Department of Corrections · filed 2006-08-22

The TDOC is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983, and is therefore not a proper defendant.

Section 1983 does not permit claims for injunctive relief against state agencies.

Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society v. Illinois Department of Natural Resources · filed 2006-11-13

I agree with defendants, however, that there is no support for the proposition that claims for injunc-tive relief may be brought under § 1983 against state agencies.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a State or its department because neither is a person under the statute.

Watson v. Georgia Department of Corrections · filed 2007-04-17

Thus, Watson’s 42 USC § 1983 claim cannot be asserted against either the State or the Department.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency.

Mendez v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2007-05-08

Finally, Mendez’s claim against the DOC fails because a state agency is not a proper party in a § 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not permit a state agency to be sued directly.

Hayden v. Alabama Dep't of Public Safety · filed 2007-06-11

42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not permit a state agency to be directly sued.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state prison as a state agency or impose liability on it under respondeat superior.

Warren v. Maine State Prison · filed 2007-06-11

Because the Maine State Prison, as an agency of the state, is not susceptible to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and because it cannot be held liable under respondeat superior, the Court grants the Prison’s motion to dismiss the Complaint.

State agencies are not subject to suit under § 1983, even for prospective injunctive relief.

Office of Consumer Counsel v. Southern New England Telephone Co. · filed 2007-07-25

This limitation includes state agencies, such as defendant DPUC. ... Accordingly, the DPUC is not subject to suit under Section 1983, and Count 4 of the Cablevision Complaint must therefore be dismissed.

State entities are not persons who can be sued under § 1983.

Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. · filed 2007-12-13

Even so, the district court properly concluded that respondents are not "persons" under § 1983. The State of Nevada is not a "person" for § 1983 purposes, [21] and respondents are state entities. [22] Thus, respondents cannot be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against a state agency because the agency is not a person under the statute.

PORTENTOSO v. Kern · filed 2008-01-24

A state agency is not a “person” that can be liable for money damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow damages suits against state agencies because they are not persons under the statute.

Martin v. Indiana State Police · filed 2008-01-29

Because ISP is a state entity, it is not subject to suit for damages under § 1983 and is entitled to summary judgment on all federal claims against it.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a State or state agency because neither is a “person” under the section.

Butler v. Illinois Department of Transportation · filed 2008-02-07

Defendant is correct that a State or State agency is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

A state agency cannot be sued under Section 1983 because the suit is legally against the state.

Segaline v. STATE, DEPT. OF L&I · filed 2008-04-29

Because L & I is a state agency, Segaline's § 1983 suit is in legal effect a suit against the state and cannot, therefore, be maintained.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or its agencies.

Fear v. DIBOLL CORRECTIONAL CENTER · filed 2008-10-14

The Plaintiff may not bring a § 1983 lawsuit against the Diboll Correctional Center, UTMB and TDCJ.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state agency because it is not a person under the statute.

Giordano v. Connecticut Valley Hospital · filed 2008-12-03

As to Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs cannot seek relief directly against CVH because it is a state agency and not a “person” for purposes of Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against Pennsylvania or its Bureau of Corrections because the state and its agency are immune and Pennsylvania is not a person under the statute.

Wareham v. Jeffes · filed 1987-09-09

The court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in favor of the commonwealth and bureau on claims arising under section 1983 because Pennsylvania’s Sovereign Immunity Act immunizes the state and its agencies from suit for federal civil rights violations and Pennsylvania is not a “person” that can be sued for damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state agencies.

Goodvine v. Swiekatowski · filed 2009-01-26

Although petitioner may not sue state agencies under § 1983, Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2804, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), he may do so under RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-2(a) & 2000CC-5, so I assume that he means to sue the Department of Corrections for each of his RLUIPA claims.

Section 1983 does not permit liability against state agencies because they are not “persons” within the statute and are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Bhatia v. Connecticut Department of Children & Families (DCF) · filed 2009-03-18

The named defendant, as a state agency, is not susceptible to liability under section 1983, both because such an agency is not a “person” within the meaning of that statute, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), and because state agencies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).

Section 1983 does not treat a state corrections department as a person subject to suit.

Holland v. Taylor · filed 2009-03-26

Furthermore, the Department of Correction, as a state agency, is not a person under § 1983 and a suit against a state agency is a suit against the state.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state or state officials in their official capacities; a personal-capacity claim must seek damages from the officials individually.

Verrichia v. Com., Dept. of Revenue · filed 1994-03-24

Because no § 1983 action can be brought against the state or a state official in his official capacity, Will, and that no true cause of action was brought against the state official defendants in this case in their personal capacity, Taxpayers had no § 1983 cause of action, ab initio.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency that is an arm of the state, regardless of the relief sought.

Komlosi v. The New York State Office Of Mental Retardation And Developmental Disabilities · filed 1995-09-07

For Eleventh Amendment purposes, OMRDD is to be considered an arm of New York State. See N.Y.Mental Hyg.Law Sec. 13.01. Accordingly, it cannot be sued under Sec. 1983, as Komlosi conceded at the oral argument of this appeal.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state agency that is an arm of the state, even for prospective relief.

Komlosi v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities · filed 1995-09-07

For Eleventh Amendment purposes, OMRDD is to be considered an arm of New York State. See N.Y.Mental Hyg.Law § 13.01. Accordingly, it cannot be sued under § 1983, as Komlosi conceded at the oral argument of this appeal. It follows that OMRDD is entitled to summary judgment dismissing Komlosi’s claim as to prospective relief and attorney fees as well as damages.

State agencies are not persons that may be sued under § 1983.

Provet v. State of NY · filed 1982-09-03

It is well settled that state agencies are not “persons” for purposes of the civil rights statutes.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for constitutional claims against state officials, precluding a direct Bivens-type action for violations committed under state law.

Stefanovic v. University of Tennessee · filed 1996-07-08

Here, just as in the Shipka case, plaintiff could have brought an action against the UT officials pursuant to § 1983 because they are state — not federal — officials. ... Therefore, to the extent that plaintiff attempts to bring a Bivens-type cause of action against the UT officials for violations committed under state laws, then defendants’ motion must be granted.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state or a district attorney’s office that is a division of the state, because a state is not a “person” under the statute.

Omegbu v. Milwaukee County · filed 2009-04-28

Thus, the “Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office” is merely a division of the state of Wisconsin, and a state is not a “person” that can be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not authorize plaintiffs to name a state attorney general solely to obtain a judgment binding the state.

Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Inc. v. Deters · filed 1996-08-05

The Seventh Circuit’s observation is equally appropriate here: “Plaintiffs apparently named the office of the Attorney General in an effort to obtain a judgment binding the State ... as an entity, a step that Congress did not authorize when enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the [Eleventh [Ajmendment does not permit in the absence of such authorization.”

Section 1983 does not authorize suits against state agencies because a state is not a person under the statute.

Hamilton v. Cook · filed 1998-10-12

A state is not a “person” as that term is used in section 1983 and, thus, may not be sued under the statute. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). Accordingly, we hold that section 1983 did not authorize the Hamiltons to bring these claims against the TWRA and the Commission.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state department of corrections.

Dobbey v. Illinois Department of Corrections · filed 2009-07-28

The district judge dismissed this prisoner’s civil rights suit (42 U.S.C. § 1983), which names the Illinois Department of Corrections, along with prison personnel, as defendants. ... The Illinois Department of Corrections was properly dismissed on the authority of Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989).

Section 1983 permits claims only against persons; a state and its agencies are not persons under the section.

Hoffman v. Connecticut · filed 2009-09-18

Since Section 1983 provides relief only against persons and since “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983,” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), Count II cannot lie against the State of Connecticut or the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state or its agencies.

ANDELA v. University of Miami · filed 2010-03-08

The State of North Carolina (including its agencies) is not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because it is not a “person” under the statute.

Barnes v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2010-04-05

The Pennsylvania D.O.C. is an arm of the state and is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983 and may not be held liable under the civil rights statute.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state or an arm of the state because neither is a person under the statute.

Myers v. Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel · filed 2010-05-28

Because MOCPCC is an arm of the state, it is not a “person” under § 1983, and Plaintiffs § 1983 claim must therefore be dismissed.

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

Cantley v. REG. JAIL & CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTH. · filed 2010-08-05

It is well established that the WVRJA is an agency of the State of West Virginia and is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983 for purposes of an action seeking money damages.

Section 1983 does not permit damages from a state treasury because a state and a state official sued in an official capacity are not “persons” under the statute.

Badger Catholic, Inc. v. Walsh · filed 2010-09-01

The request for damages founders on the Supreme Court’s decision that a state (including a state official sued in an official capacity) is not a “person” for the purpose of § 1983, see Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), which means that damages from the state treasury are not available under that statute.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a constitutional claim against a state official.

Dukes v. Pappas · filed 2010-12-28

Dukes’s claims against the SEC defendants are properly brought under Bivens, while his claim against Maryland’s assistant attorney general is properly brought under § 1983.

A state governmental unit is not a proper defendant under section 1983 because a state is not a “person” under the statute.

McBride Sr. v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division · filed 2011-01-27

Accordingly, the Department was not a proper party to McBride’s section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state department of public safety because a state is not a person under the section.

Pauline v. STATE OF HAWAII DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY · filed 2011-02-25

Moreover, a state is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983 and therefore neither a state court nor a federal court may entertain a § 1983 action against a state.

State agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Mills v. Iowa Board of Regents · filed 2011-03-09

By its terms, § 1983 only applies to “persons,” and it is well settled that state agencies, such as the University, are not “persons” for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state entity that is not amenable to suit under the statute.

Local 727, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority · filed 2011-03-31

In any event, these claims fail as a matter of law because the MPEA is not amenable to suit under § 1983 ... and cannot be sued for damages in federal court.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency because the agency is not a “person” under the statute.

Weston v. Illinois Department of Human Services · filed 2011-08-04

As a state agency, IDHS is not a “person” amenable to a § 1983 suit, see Illinois Dunesland Preservation Soc’y v. Ill. Dep’t of Natural Res., 584 F.3d 719, 721 (7th Cir. 2009), and furthermore is immune from a suit for damages under the Eleventh Amendment, see Burrus v. State Lottery Comm’n of Indiana, 546 F.3d 417, 420 (7th Cir. 2008); Kroll v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois, 934 F.2d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 1991).

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against a state agency because it is not a person under the statute.

Anderson v. Board of Regents · filed 2011-09-30

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement, this Court maintains its original ruling that the BOR cannot be sued for money damages under § 1983. As the BOR has only been sued under § 1983, the Court dismisses all claims against it.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state agencies because they are not persons within its meaning.

Weisman v. New Jersey Department of Human Services · filed 2011-10-05

Based on the clearly established case law, Defendants DHS and Ancora as arms of the state are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. Therefore, Weisman cannot maintain § 1983 claims against these state agencies.

A state acting through its corrections department is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Catanzaro v. Harry · filed 2012-01-31

In addition, the State of Michigan (acting through the MDOC) is not a “person” who may be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state university’s board of trustees because the board is not a person under the statute.

Harris v. Board of Trustees University · filed 2012-02-27

First, the Board of Trustees is not a suable entity under § 1983, as it is not a “person” subject to suit under that statute.

Section 1983 does not treat a state police department that is an arm of the state as a person subject to suit.

Santiago v. Keyes · filed 2012-03-08

It is also undisputed that the Department of State Police is an arm of the State and, as such, is entitled to sovereign immunity and cannot constitute a “person” under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states or state agencies because they are not persons under the statute.

Gattuso v. New Jersey Department of Human Services · filed 2012-07-25

Whether the argument is properly characterized as one of sovereign immunity or simple failure to state a claim, the Court agrees that states and state agencies are not amenable to suit under § 1983 because states and “arms of the state” such as Defendants here are not “persons” under the statute.

Section 1983 permits a suit against a state official for injunctive relief.

Larson v. State, Department of Corrections · filed 2012-08-31

However, a state official may be sued for injunctive relief under § 1983.

States and state agencies are not suable persons under Section 1983; naming individual defendants can avoid that statutory bar.

Thomas v. State of Illinois · filed 2012-09-27

But the Will decision, supra, 491 U.S. at 70-71, held that a state and its agencies are not suable “persons” within the meaning ... of section 1983 (see also Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613, 617 (2002); Carroll v. DeTella, 255 F.3d 470, 471 (7th Cir. 2001)), thus providing a statutory as distinct from a constitutional defense to section 1983 suits against states and their agencies.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state university that is an arm of the state because it is not a “person” under the statute.

Dececco v. University of South Carolina · filed 2013-01-16

In sum, USC is entitled to dismissal of the Section 1983 claim both under the Eleventh Amendment and because it is not a “person” subject to suit for damages under the statute.

States and their agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Doe v. Delaware State Police · filed 2013-04-04

Adding the proposed § 1983 claims would be futile: against DSP, they would still be ... barred by Delaware’s sovereign immunity as states are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983, ... and amendment would not cure the Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over Seaford PD, ... (leave to amend may properly be denied when amended complaint could not “withstand a motion to dismiss”).

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state university that is an arm of the state because it is not a person subject to suit under the section.

Cardwell v. Auburn University Montgomery · filed 2013-04-22

In any event, the Court agrees with Defendant that a § 1981 claim cannot be brought against AUM because AUM is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages action against a state agency because the agency is not a person under the statute.

Masters v. DMV CA2/4 · filed 2013-04-24

Thus, a cause of action seeking money damages for a violation of federal due process cannot be brought against the DMV under Title 42 United States Code section 1983.

State agencies are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

McGuire v. Florida Lottery · filed 2013-05-30

Moreover, the only non-private party named as a defendant, the “Florida Lottery,” does not constitute a “person” under § 1983, and enjoys immunity as a state agency pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against a government agency because the agency is not a person under the statute.

Nate Holyoke Builders v. Maine Workers' Compensation Bd. · filed 2013-07-17

Because an agency is not a "person" as envisioned by the statute, NHB has no cause ofaction under§ 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against the Minnesota Department of Education because it is not a “person” under the statute.

I.E.C. ex rel J.R. v. Minneapolis Public Schools · filed 2013-08-26

fails as a matter of law and should be dismissed because the Minnesota Department of Education cannot be sued as a “person” under § 1983.

A state agency is not a person subject to liability under § 1983 and cannot be sued under it.

Bradley v. Wisconsin Department of Children & Families · filed 2013-08-30

Because the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families is a state agency, see Wis. Stat. § 15.20, Bradley cannot pursue a § 1983 suit against it.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state, but state officials may be sued in their individual capacities for acts performed as part of their official duties.

Hernandez-Bolanos v. Widmar · filed 2013-09-19

Because the State cannot be a proper defendant to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, see Will, 491 U.S. at 64-70, NRS 41.031 and NRS 41.0337 necessarily do not apply to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. Instead, to the extent that Hernandez's complaint was intended to institute a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, Palmer, Widmar, and Olivas, in their individual capacities were the proper defendants to that action, not the State.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal suit against a state or its agencies without state consent or congressional abrogation.

Tyler v. Massachusetts · filed 2013-11-07

For purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, a State, its agencies, and agency officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” in the meaning of section 1983, and therefore are not subject to suit in the federal courts without a State’s consent (or an abrogation of State sovereignty in a particular instance by Congress).

State departments are not persons subject to suits for money damages under § 1983.

A.D. ex rel. McGhee v. Alabama Department of Human Resources · filed 2014-01-31

As an initial matter, a state is not considered a “person” subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

A state university is not a person that can be sued under § 1983 for a First Amendment violation.

Jackson v. Texas Southern University · filed 2014-02-03

Moreover, regarding a claim for impeding the right to free expression under the First Amendment and § 1983, a state university is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983 and therefore not a proper defendant to such a claim.

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

Livingston v. Bakewell · filed 2014-02-04

Because the State Bar and defendants in their official capacity are not “persons,” plaintiff is not entitled to seek monetary relief against them pursuant to § 1983.

State agencies are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Cox v. Massachusetts Department of Correction · filed 2014-03-12

The Massachusetts Department of Correction is a state agency, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 27, § 1, and therefore is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a state, its corrections department, or state officials sued in their official capacities as persons subject to suit.

Endl v. New Jersey · filed 2014-03-13

None of the Corrections Defendants, sued in their official capacities, are “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983 or the NJCRA.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their individual capacities.

Kille, Sr. v. Bisbee · filed 2014-05-14

Although the district court held, in resolving these claims, that state officials could not be sued in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that conclusion is erroneous.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state entity because it is not a person under the section.

Barsoumian v. Williams · filed 2014-06-30

Moreover, Plaintiffs § 1983 claim against the School could not be maintained in any event because a state entity is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of that section.

Section 1983 does not allow suits against state entities because they are not persons under the statute.

Raymond v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota · filed 2015-10-20

It is well established that state entities are not “persons” under § 1983 arid therefore are not subject to suit. ... Thus, the Court concludes that the University is not subject to suit and therefore must be dismissed.

States and state agencies are not persons who may be sued under § 1983.

International Ass'n of Machinists District 10 v. Wisconsin · filed 2016-07-12

With respect to the other defendants, neither the State of Wisconsin nor the DWD are “persons” that may be sued under § 1983, so they must be dismissed as to those claims.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a federal constitutional claim against a state officer.

Zargari v. USA · filed 2016-09-22

As explained above, King was not a federal law enforcement officer, so § 1983, not Bivens, is the appropriate vehicle to bring suit against a state officer for violation of a federal constitutional right.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states or state agencies because they are not persons under the statute.

Krebs v. El Dorado Correctional Facility · filed 2016-12-28

But States and their agencies are not persons subject to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a state or state agency as a person that can be sued for retrospective or prospective relief.

Myers v. Nalin Desai (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-12-30

Neither a state nor a state agency is a person under § 1983 regardless of whether the claims raised sought retrospective or prospective relief. ... As such, the trial court correctly dismissed the claims levied against the State of Indiana under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states or their agencies.

Egberto v. Nevada Dep't. of Corrections · filed 2017-02-06

As an initial matter, we note that the district court granted summary judgment to the Nevada Department of Corrections (Department) on the grounds that neither a state nor its agencies can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We do not take Egberto to challenge this aspect of the district court’s order, but that portion of the order was correct, in any case.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because a state agency is not a person under the statute.

D.W. Hoffman v. Dr. S. Makhoul, M.D. · filed 2017-05-05

A state or state agency, however, is not a “person” under Section 1983. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-71 (1989). Because BHCS is a Commonwealth agency, Plaintiff therefore as a matter of law had no cause of action against BHCS for violation of his federal constitutional rights.

States and entities that qualify as arms of the state are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Ndzerre v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2017-06-21

Because the Supreme Court has made clear that states_or entities that qualify as arms of the state_are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983, plaintiffs claims under that statute must be dismissed See Will v. Ml`chl'gan Dep ’t ofStaIe Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989); see also Disabilily Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washz`ngton Metro. Area TransitAuth., 239 F.R.D. 9, 20 (D.D.C. 2006) (dismissing plaintiffs § 1983 claim against WMATA because it is not a “person” and therefore cannot be sued under the statute); Lucero-Nelson, 1 F. Supp. 2d at 7 (D.D.C. 1998) (rejecting plaintiffs § 1983 claim against Wl\/[ATA because “as an arm of the state Wl\/IATA is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the statute”).

State entities are not persons under § 1983 and cannot be defendants in a civil rights action.

Angie Brown v. Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office · filed 2017-08-31

Additionally, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Brown’s claims against the VBSO because, as the district court correctly noted, state entities like the VBSO are not “persons” under § 1983, and therefore do not qualify as proper defendants in a civil rights action.

States and state agencies are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Phipps v. Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment Committee · filed 2017-11-01

States and state agencies are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against a state or state agency.

Basey v. State, Department of Public Safety, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Bureau of Investigations · filed 2017-12-29

Basey brought his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,53 neither of which provides for a cause of action against a state or state agency.

A state court cannot be sued under § 1983 because the state is not a “person” subject to suit under the statute.

Jones v. Justice of the Peace Court 3 · filed 2018-03-08

We also agree with the District Court that dismissal is proper because Delaware is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a state department to be sued directly for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief.

Wright v. Dep't of Corr. · filed 2018-05-29

We agree with the department that it is not liable for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief under § 1983 or the MCRA.

A state department of corrections is not a person subject to liability under Section 1983.

Vick v. Core Civic · filed 2018-06-11

However, TDOC is not a "person" for purposes of Section 1983 liability.

A state is not subject to suit under Section 1983, and a city is liable only when its policy or custom infringes a plaintiff’s rights.

Frazier v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2018-06-07

The District Court properly determined that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was not subject to suit under § 1983, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); that Frazier had not alleged that the City violated a municipal policy or custom that infringed on his rights, see Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691 ... (1978); that Frazier could have filed a motion in the 2016 case to reopen the time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure instead of filing a lawsuit; and that there was no underlying merit to any appeal that Frazier was prevented from filing, see Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002).

States and their agencies are not persons who can be sued under § 1983.

Newton v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC · filed 2018-07-11

In addition, neither the State of Florida nor its agencies could be named in or added to the lawsuit without violating the Eleventh Amendment, and neither the State of Florida nor its agencies are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state agencies.

Oleszczak v. DCFS · filed 2018-07-16

The court need not decide whether Oleszczak’s §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 claims are barred by sovereign immunity, because state agencies may not be sued under those statutes.

State officials sued in their official capacities generally are not persons under Section 1983, but they may be sued in those capacities for prospective injunctive relief.

B.J. Murray v. Sec. J. Wetzel · filed 2018-08-08

Accordingly, state officials sued in their official capacities are not “persons” under Section 1983. ... Notwithstanding, “a state official in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under [Section] 1983 because official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as an action against the state.”

State entities may not be sued under Section 1983.

Doe, SORB No. 474362 v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2018-09-19

SORB is not a proper defendant under § 1983, as it is a State entity, see G. L. c. 6, § 178K, and State entities may not be sued under § 1983.

State agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Summers v. Second Chance Homes, LLC · filed 2018-09-28

DMH and DMH-DD are not persons subject to suit for the purpose of a § 1983 action.

State agencies are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Nelson v. ACIC · filed 2019-01-08

That being said, state agencies are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

A state agency is not a person capable of being sued under § 1983.

Jones v. Minner · filed 2019-02-08

As the District Court noted, the Delaware Governor’s Office, a state agency, is not a “person” capable of being sued under § 1983.

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

Berry v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections & a. · filed 2019-02-28

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s second complaint for the following reasons: (1) the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim fails because Section 1983 exempts state agencies and state officials acting in their official capacity from its purview, ... Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned orders, ... we conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error.

State agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Patton v. Glover · filed 2019-03-19

First, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against the ACC be dismissed, because States and state agencies are not “persons” subject to suit under §1983. ... The Report and Recommendation is proper, contains no clear error, and is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

A state department is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

J.J. Koehler Jr. v. Wetzel · filed 2019-03-22

Concerning Appellees’ preliminary objection arguing that Koehler cannot maintain a cause of action against the Department because the Department is not a “person” pursuant to Section 1983, we also agree.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state agencies because states are not suable “persons” under the section.

Phillips v. Baxter · filed 2019-04-23

The district court was correct, however, to conclude that amending the complaint to bring a Monell claim against the Department was futile. As a state agency, the Department is an arm of the state, 20 ILCS 5/5-15, and states are not suable “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state court because it is not a “person” under the statute.

Burns v. Orange County Supreme Court · filed 2019-04-29

Because the New York Supreme Court, Orange County, is part of the New York State Unified Court System, see N.Y. Const., Art. 6, § 1(a), it is not a “person” that may be sued under § 1983.

States and their agencies are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Cole v. North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections · filed 2019-05-14

As to Defendant North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections, neither the State of North Carolina nor its agencies constitute “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

State correctional facilities are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Points v. Green · filed 2019-05-31

A state and its agencies are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against states or state agencies because they are not suable persons.

Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. · filed 2019-06-10

Another reason that claims against the state and its agencies cannot be maintained under § 1983 is that these entities are not suable “persons” for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not create a cause of action against a state or its agencies because they are not persons under the statute.

McGrone v. Sorensen · filed 2019-06-24

Thus, § 1983 does not create a cause of action against the State of Nebraska or the NDCS.

Section 1983 does not treat state agencies or their subdivisions as persons who can be sued.

Habib v. Correctional Managed Health Care · filed 2019-07-11

However, neither a state agency nor any subdivision thereof is considered a person within the meaning of section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state corrections department because it is not a person subject to suit.

Larue v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2019-07-15

In any event, this Court agrees that IDOC is not subject to suit under Section 1983, and therefore dismisses the claim against it.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or its agencies or departments.

Smith v. Tulsa County District Attorney Office · filed 2019-07-26

Also, neither the State of Oklahoma nor its agencies or departments are subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and all of Plaintiff's claims are time barred by operation of the applicable statutes of limitations.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against states, state agencies, or state officials sued in their official capacity.

BEST v. STATE OF INDIANA · filed 2019-08-01

The United States Supreme Court has held that states, state agencies, and state officials sued in their official capacity for damages are not “persons” under Section 1983. ... In light of the Supreme Court precedent and Best’s acknowledgement that he is not advancing a deliberate indifference claim against IDOC, the Court grants the Defendants’ request to exclude reference to a deliberate indifference claim against IDOC; however, Best is permitted to present evidence concerning the factual underpinnings of his claims.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because a state agency is not a person subject to liability under the section.

Frisby v. The State of California Department of Justice · filed 2019-08-07

As a state agency, Defendant DOJ is not a “person” subject to liability under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state agencies or departments because they are not persons subject to liability under it.

Gilliam v. Black · filed 2019-08-07

Thus, as state agencies or departments or divisions within state departments, neither UCONN, nor the Connecticut State Police, nor the Department of Correction is a person subject to liability under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against a state or its department because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Longmire 337629 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2019-08-14

In addition, the State of Michigan (acting through the Michigan Department of Corrections) is not a “person” who may be sued under §1983 for money damages.

Section 1983 generally does not permit claims against a state corrections agency because the agency is immune from suit.

Walters v. Baldwin · filed 2019-08-16

Additionally, IDOC, as a state government agency, is generally immune from suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit money-damages suits against a state or its department because they are not persons under the statute.

Bryant 590718 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2019-08-20

In addition, the State of Michigan (acting through the Michigan Department of Corrections) is not a “person” who may be sued under §1983 for money damages.

Section 1983 does not treat a State or its agencies as a person subject to suit.

Smith v. United States District Court · filed 2019-08-21

neither a State nor a State agency is a “person” under §1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state corrections department because a state agency is not a person under the statute.

King Oliver v. IDOC · filed 2019-08-22

To the extent Plaintiff claims he is being retaliated against for filing grievances while in IDOC custody, he cannot pursue his suit against IDOC because it is a state agency.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because the agency is not a person under the statute.

Comstock v. State of Washington Child Protective Services · filed 2019-08-27

CPS is not a person for purposes of a § 1983 claim. Neither states nor state officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state department of corrections because the agency is not a person under the statute.

McFadden v. Kruger · filed 2019-09-11

The Department of Corrections, a state agency, is not a person amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because the agency is not a person under the statute.

FRAMELI v. JOYCE · filed 2019-09-11

The Pennsylvania State Game Commission is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

A state agency is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Siberius v. American Military University & American Public University Systems · filed 2019-09-13

Likewise, the WVDE, an agency of the State of West Virginia, is not a person with respect to section 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a suit against a state corrections department because the department is not a person under the statute.

Wood v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2019-09-17

Next, ODOC is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, and as an instrumentality of the State, it is immune from suit for damages in federal court.

Section 1983 does not permit a constitutional claim against a state agency because the agency is not a proper defendant.

Bishop v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2019-09-19

Plaintiffs claim against the North Carolina Department of Justice is barred because an agency of the state of North Carolina is not a proper defendant for a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because it is not a person under the statute.

Pennington v. Flack · filed 2019-09-25

Plaintiff cannot maintain his lawsuit against the Illinois State Police because it is a state agency. “Neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state parole board because the state is not a person under the statute.

Thomas v. California State Board of Parole · filed 2019-09-26

Second, Plaintiff may not seek damages against the Board of Parole Hearings, an agency of the State of California. The State of California is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983 and is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states or their arms.

Olivares v. Performance Contracting Group Performance Abatement Services · filed 2019-09-26

The Court does, however, recognize that states cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The MCAC is therefore dismissed as a Defendant.

Section 1983 does not allow claims against a state or its agencies because a state is not a person under the statute.

Kirk v. State of New Mexico · filed 2019-09-27

Last, to the extent he seeks to name the State of New Mexico or its agencies, those claims are all subject to dismissal because the State is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983 and any claims against the State are barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state prisons or corrections department offices that share the state’s immunity and are not persons under the statute.

Beckett v. Grant · filed 2019-10-02

Moreover, the three prisons, as well as the DOC’s Bureau of Health Care Services and Office of Population Management, are not amenable to suit under § 1983 because they share in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Eleventh Amendment immunity and are not persons under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency that is an arm of the state because it is not a “person” under the statute.

State of Hawaii v. Stone · filed 2019-10-08

First, as to Stone’s claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Court agrees that OCP is not a “person.”

A division of a state agency cannot be sued under Section 1983.

Nunley v. Menard Correctional Center · filed 2019-10-08

The only named defendant is Menard, which is a division of the Illinois Department of Corrections, a state government agency not subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation because it is not a person under the statute.

(PC) Stratford v. Brazelton · filed 2019-10-15

In addition, the CDCR is not a “person” for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is not subject to this suit.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against a state agency because a state agency is not a person under the statute.

Personal Restraint Petition Of Jess R. Smith · filed 2019-10-21

But a state agency is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983. ... Accordingly, Smith could not file a § 1983 claim against DOC.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state department of corrections because it is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

Barbarin v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2019-10-24

This entity is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities even though they are not subject to official-capacity damages claims.

Kokesh v. Curlee · filed 2019-10-24

Thus, the § 1983 claims, if alleged against Curlee in his official capacity, would be barred because state officials acting in their official capacity, are not “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will, supra. However, plaintiff has sued Curlee in his individual capacity. Accordingly, his 1983 claims are not barred on that basis.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state corrections department or its subdivisions because they are not persons under the statute.

Minley 203987 v. Pierce · filed 2019-10-25

In addition, the State of Michigan (acting through the Michigan Department of Corrections and its divisions) is not a “person” who may be sued under §1983 for money damages. ... The Pain Management Committee is simply a subdivision of the MDOC. Therefore, the Court dismisses the MDOC Pain Management Committee.