42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for money damages against a state or its department because the state is not a suable person.

Bell 476602 v. Michigan, State of · filed 2019-11-01

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 allow damages claims against a state or a state official sued in an official capacity because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Webb v. Ricketts · filed 2019-11-01

The State of Nebraska and Governor Ricketts, in his official capacity, are not “persons” under § 1983 and are immune from suit for damages in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Melendrez v. New Mexico District Attorney's Office · filed 2019-11-01

The State is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, therefore, there is no remedy against the State under § 1983.

A state corrections department is not a person who may be sued for money damages under § 1983.

Powell 484234 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2019-11-06

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 permit a claim against a state institution because it is not a person under the statute and is immune from suit.

Duke v. Hamil · filed 2014-02-04

In this regard, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” ... As a state institution, the Board of Regents is therefore immune from suit.

Section 1983 permits a suit for prospective relief against a state attorney general with sufficient authority to enforce the challenged law.

Does 1-5 v. Cooper · filed 2014-08-22

Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that Attorney General Cooper does not at the outset have the appropriate statutory authority to enforce a violation of § 14-208.18 in situations where the District Attorneys may be enjoined from such enforcement. As such, Attorney General Cooper is a proper defendant in this lawsuit, and the Court will therefore deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Attorney General Cooper for lack of personal jurisdiction.

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

Jamgotchian v. State Horse Racing Commission · filed 2017-08-29

Plaintiffs’' claims for injunctive relief against the individual Defendants in their official capacities, on the other hand, would not be treated as an action against Pennsylvania and are permissible.

State agencies are not persons who can be sued under Section 1983 for damages or injunctive relief.

Michalski v. Erfe · filed 2019-11-13

A state agency, acting as an arm of the state, therefore may not be named as a defendant in suits under Section 1983 for either injunctive or monetary relief; and state officials sued in their official capacity may not be sued for damages under Section 1983, but may be sued for injunctive relief.

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

Marbury v. Wilerby · filed 2019-11-14

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring a Section 1983 claim against the N.C. Department of Public Safety (NCDPS), Plaintiff is advised that neither the State of North Carolina nor its agencies constitute “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

TALLEY v. DOYLE · filed 2019-11-14

The DOC, as a state agency, is not a “person” under § 1983.

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

Johnson v. Katterman · filed 2019-11-15

Plaintiff names the Lincoln Healthcare Unit although he was previously advised that the Healthcare unit, as a department of the State of Illinois, is not a “suable ‘person[s]’ within the meaning of section 1983…” Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012).

A state and its corrections department are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Matthews v. TDOC · filed 2019-11-15

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Matthews, therefore, does not state a valid claim against the TDOC or any Defendant in his or her official capacity.

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

Howard v. Eastern Reception, Diagnostic & Correctional Center · filed 2019-11-20

Because the State of Missouri is not a § 1983 “person,” plaintiff cannot assert all the elements of a § 1983 claim. Therefore, this action must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

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

Diaz v. Wexford, Inc. · filed 2019-11-22

Further, he cannot maintain a claim against IDOC because it is not a “person” under Section 1983.

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

Vizcarrondo v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections Northeast Reintegration Center · filed 2019-11-22

Consequently, multiple courts have found that ODRC is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Therefore, the Court grants ODRC’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Vizcarrondo’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

States and state agencies are not persons who can be sued under Section 1983.

JOHNSON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI · filed 2019-11-26

Plaintiff cannot maintain this § 1983 Complaint against the State of Mississippi or the Mississippi Department of Corrections.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state agencies that are arms of the state because they are not persons under the statute.

Mitchell v. Dept. of Corrections · filed 2019-11-27

The FDOC is an arm of the executive branch of state government, see Fla. Stat. § 20.315, and thus is not a person for purposes of § l983 litigation.

Section 1983 does not permit a constitutional claim against a state agency because the agency is not a person subject to suit.

Walsh v. Coleman · filed 2019-12-04

Moreover, because the DOC is an entity of the State of Connecticut, the DOC is not a “person” subject to suit for a violation of the Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency because the agency is not a suable person.

Dolly's Cafe, LLC v. Illinois Gaming Board · filed 2019-12-06

Initially, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to name the Illinois Gaming Board in either of its Fourteenth Amendment claims, the Gaming Board, as a state agency, is dismissed as an improper party.

A state corrections department is not a person subject to an individual-capacity claim under § 1983.

Bush v. Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2019-12-09

The FDOC is an arm of the executive branch of state government, see Fla. Stat. § 20.315, and thus, is not a person subject to an individual capacity claim under § l983.

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

Jones-El v. Godert · filed 2019-12-11

At the outset, the Court finds that MDOC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law inasmuch MDOC is a division of the State of Missouri and therefore is not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against the Michigan Department of Corrections or its facilities because they are not persons under the statute.

Goldman v. Elum · filed 2019-12-13

In addition to Plaintiff’s failure to plead the existence of imminent danger in the necessary timeframe, the institutional defendants he originally named, the MDOC and its facilities, are not “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and enjoy sovereign immunity.

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

Taylor v. DSCYF · filed 2019-12-17

Nonetheless, Taylor cannot bring a lawsuit for money damages against DSCYF pursuant to § 1983 as she attempted here.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against a state or a state board because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Barnes v. Board of Trustees of the Unive · filed 2020-01-03

The Board of Trustees, as part of the State, is not a “person” capable of being sued for damages under § 1983.

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

Dawson v. Wheeler · filed 2020-01-03

In addition, dismissal is proper because neither DFS nor Porter Center are persons for purposes of § 1983.

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

ELANSARI v. PHILADELPHIA MUNICIPAL COURT · filed 2020-01-06

Mr. Elansari’s claims against the Philadelphia Municipal Court fails because state courts are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit and are not considered “persons” for purposes of § 1983.

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

Dunmore v. Duncan · filed 2020-01-07

But the IDOC, as a state agency, “is not a ‘person’ that can be sued under section 1983.” ... Thus, insofar as the IDOC was a Defendant to Count 1, it is dismissed.

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

Jackson v. Baldwin · filed 2020-01-15

Plaintiff cannot maintain his claim against IDOC because it is a state governmental agency that cannot be sued for money damages. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“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 a state is not a person under the statute.

Thomas v. California State Board of Parole · filed 2020-01-21

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 money damages against a state department because the state is not a “person” under the statute.

Watkins 704896 v. MDOC · filed 2020-01-21

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

Section 1983 permits suits against persons, but state agencies are not persons under the statute.

ALTICE USA, INC. v. NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES · filed 2020-01-22

Altice fares no better under this venerable civil rights statute, because the provision limits its scope to suits against “person[s],” and state agencies are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state department of corrections because it is not a person under the section.

MCLEOD v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-01-24

The Department of Corrections is not a person under § 1983 and, therefore, any claims against it are dismissed with prejudice.

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

Harvey, Jr. v. Brookhart · filed 2020-01-27

Furthermore, Harvey cannot maintain his suit against the Illinois Department of Corrections, because it is a state government agency. The Supreme Court has held that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”

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

Cameron v. Easter · filed 2020-01-29

The State and its agencies are not “persons” that Congress made amenable to suit for damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat state agencies as persons who can be sued under it.

Torres v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation · filed 2020-01-30

CDCR and CCHCS, as state agencies, are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

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

Rivera v. Gauen · filed 2020-01-31

A state or state agency such as IDOC is not a “person” amenable to suit under this statutory scheme.

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

Locklear v. Hooks · filed 2020-02-03

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

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state.

Grover v. State of Nebraska · filed 2020-02-03

The court in its previous Memorandum and Order explained that while Grover appeared to be claiming that he was not receiving proper nutrition at the jail, he could not bring a § 1983 action against the State of the Nebraska. The court also explained that in order to state a valid claim for relief against Saunders County or an individual defendant, he would need to allege certain supporting facts and should be prepared to show that he exhausted available administrative remedies. Grover’s Amended Complaint fails to correct any of the pleading defects that were noted by the court.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency because a state is not a person within the section’s meaning.

Powell v. MBTA · filed 2020-02-12

However, a state is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

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

Romano v. Department Family Services · filed 2020-02-13

In addition, dismissal is proper because neither Defendant is a person for purposes of § 1983.

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

Allison v. N.C. Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-02-19

Neither the State of North Carolina nor its agencies constitute “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

Jimma v. Washington State Department of Social and Human Services · filed 2020-02-20

Likewise, an individual cannot sue a state agency under § 1983 because state agencies are not persons within the meaning of § 1983.

State courts are immune from § 1983 suits and are not persons subject to liability under the section.

HAMILTON v. 35TH DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2020-02-24

Mr. Hamilton’s claims against “1301 Filbert Street & Courthouse,” which we understand to be claims against the state court, fail because state courts are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit and are not considered “persons” for purposes of § 1983.

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

Perry v. New Mexico Corrections Department · filed 2020-02-28

Plaintiff cannot proceed against the current Defendants (NMDOC and Corrections Secretary Jablonski) as a matter of law. The Tenth Circuit has expressly held that the NMDOC is “not [a] ... ‘person’ subject to suit under § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against Oklahoma’s Department of Human Services because the agency is an arm of the state, not a person subject to suit under the section.

Cox v. State of Oklahoma, The · filed 2020-03-05

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and federal district courts in Oklahoma have held that DHS is agency that is treated as an arm of the state, and DHS is not a person that can be sued under § 1983. ... Plaintiff is not permitted to include a § 1983 against DHS in her amended complaint.

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

Strotman v. Correct Care Solutions · filed 2020-03-05

However, the Eleventh Amendment’s immunity protects the DOC from suit under § 1983 and, in any event, it is not considered a “person” for the purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state agencies that are arms of the state.

(PC) Jones v. Bal · filed 2020-03-06

The CDCR is an arm of the State of California such that it is not subject to § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not treat state agencies as persons subject to damages suits.

Emerick v. Connecticut · filed 2020-03-06

Hence, the Judicial Oversight Institutions are not “persons” under Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits for prospective equitable relief against state officials, but not state agencies.

Biggs v. NC Dept of Public Safety · filed 2020-03-10

We think North Carolina’s highest court misread Will, which stated only that state officials—not state institutions—can be sued for equitable relief under § 1983.

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

EVANS-SAMPSON v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT OF HUMAN SERVICES · filed 2020-03-10

As an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Department of Human Services is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and does not constitute a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

A state prison is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

SMITH v. MUNCY · filed 2020-03-10

In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff intended to bring a claim against SCI Muncy, the Court will dismiss with prejudice Defendant SCI Muncy because a state prison is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state corrections department or the State itself.

Horton v. Washburn · filed 2020-03-13

It is true that TDOC is properly viewed as the State of Tennessee for purposes of Section 1983, but Plaintiff’s claim could not survive with TDOC merely recast as the State, because the State likewise is not a proper defendant in a Section 1983 action.

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

Carver v. Houchens Food Group, Inc. · filed 2020-03-16

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

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

Doe v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University · filed 2020-03-19

In Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), the Supreme Court held that neither states nor state officials in their official capacities are persons subject to suit under § 1983. ... Doe appears to agree that he cannot recover monetary damages against Virginia Tech, or its official or employees in their official capacities, and the court will grant defendants’ motion in this regard.

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

Salami 879045 v. Rewerts · filed 2020-03-20

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

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

Peoples v. Oswego Community School District · filed 2020-03-22

Indeed, the states and their agencies are not even considered “persons” that are suable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages claims against state agencies.

Wilson v. IDOC · filed 2020-03-30

Further, he cannot maintain his claim against IDOC because it is a state governmental agency that cannot be sued for money damages.

A state university that is an agency of the state is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

MITCHELL v. WINSTON SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2020-03-30

Also, because WSSU is an agency of the State of North Carolina, it is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983 and thus does not fall within the purview of § 1983.

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

Iredell Sanders v. Indiana Department of Child Se · filed 2020-03-31

The Department has a statutory defense: neither a state nor, by extension, a state agency, is a “person” for the purposes of § 1983.

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

Martinez v. State of New Mexico · filed 2020-03-31

The Court dismisses the § 1983 damages claims against the State of New Mexico Defendants without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because they are immune from § 1983 damages suits.

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

COLEMAN v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT · filed 2020-04-02

As such, Defendants may not be sued for damages under Section 1983.

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

Johnson v. City of New York · filed 2020-04-02

A court is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. ... For these reasons, the Bronx Criminal Court is not a proper defendant, and Plaintiff’s claims against it are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state department of correction or its prison facilities because they are not persons subject to liability.

Lang v. Connecticut Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-06

Accordingly, the Department of Correction including its prison facilities, is not a person subject to liability under section 1983.

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

(PC) Bland v. Moffett · filed 2020-04-07

Therefore, CDCR, as a state agency, cannot be sued under section 1983.

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

Johnson v. Department of Social & Health · filed 2020-04-10

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim and DSHS is a state agency not subject to liability under § 1983.

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

Nelson v. Gegare · filed 2020-04-14

The court also notes that the plaintiff cannot sue the Department of Corrections under §1983. The Department of Corrections is an agency of the State of Wisconsin.

Section 1983 does not permit a plaintiff to sue the Michigan Department of Corrections.

Longmire 337629 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-14

Plaintiff may not maintain a § 1983 action against the MDOC.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state agencies.

Reed, James v. Waterman, Jolinda · filed 2020-04-15

In any event, he cannot proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against the department because state agencies may not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

McMullin v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-04-15

MDPS, as an arm of the State of Mississippi, is not a “person” under § 1983; accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983 against MDPS, and these claims are dismissed.

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

Allison v. N.C. Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-04-16

Neither the State of North Carolina nor its agencies constitute “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

Williams v. State of Nebraska · filed 2020-04-20

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

Section 1983 provides no remedy against a state or its agencies because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Manygoat v. New Mexico State Supreme Court · filed 2020-04-20

The State is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, therefore, there is no remedy against the State under § 1983.

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

Welshons v. Baltimore City Correctional Center · filed 2020-04-22

Neither a state nor a state agency is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983 and therefore may not be sued under that provision.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a state department of corrections because it is not a person under the statute.

PRESTON v. HALL · filed 2020-04-27

The Georgia Department of Corrections is not subject to liability under § 1983 because it is not a “person” as defined by that statute.

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

Lopez v. State of New Mexico · filed 2020-04-30

As a state agency, the NMDOC does not qualify under that test. ... Hence, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against NMDOC fail.

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

Thompson v. Hartford County Medical Department · filed 2020-05-06

As a unit of the state agency, the Medical Department of Hartford Correctional Center also is not a person within the meaning of section 1983.

A state agency exercising state power is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Goodson v. Orf · filed 2020-05-07

The complaint fails to state a claim against the MDOC because an agency exercising state power is not a “person” subject to a suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state prison because the prison is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

Dudley v. Sci-Camp Hill (Prison) · filed 2020-05-07

However, as the Court previously informed Plaintiff, SCI Camp Hill is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Davies v. Espinda · filed 2020-05-08

The Department of Public Safety, as an agency of the state, is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983.

A state corrections department is not a person subject to a § 1983 suit for money damages.

Henderson 960081 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-05-08

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

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

(PC) Connor v. CDCR · filed 2020-05-19

Additionally, plaintiff’s claim against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation must be dismissed without leave to amend, as that agency is not a “person” who may be sued under § 1983.

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

Early v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-05-19

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

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

Tillison v. State of Delaware · filed 2020-05-20

Further, a state agency “is not a person” subject to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against persons, but state entities cannot be sued under it.

Shabani, Khaled v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2020-05-28

As an initial matter, plaintiff cannot proceed on any claims against the State of Wisconsin or the Wisconsin Department of Justice because these proposed defendants are state entities that may not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Ingram v. Sellers · filed 2020-05-28

Furthermore, even if listed as a defendant, Ingram cannot maintain a suit against IDOC under Section 1983 because it is a state government agency.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state correctional agencies, even when their policies allegedly caused the injuries.

Fudge v. Sierra County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2020-05-29

The Amended Complaint does not cite, and the Court is not aware of, any legal authority that would allow the claims to proceed against state agencies, who are immune from § 1983 damages suits, if “policies that were used under the color of state law were the cause of stated complaints.”

A state parole board is not a person subject to suit under § 1983 and has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

ROBERTS v. SCOTT · filed 2020-05-29

The Board, as part of the Commonwealth, is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and, in any event, is not considered a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

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

Brown v. Costello · filed 2020-06-01

In addition, dismissal is proper because the Department of Corrections is not a person for purposes of § 1983.

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

Gonzales v. Texas Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-06-01

Furthermore, a state agency is not considered a “person” acting under color of law for purposes of a civil rights action.

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

Paschall v. Frietze · filed 2020-06-02

Because DPS is considered an arm of the state and is not a “person” under §1983, Plaintiff’s §1983 claims against NMSP shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

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

Carroll v. Hamik · filed 2020-06-11

A state is not a “person” as that term is used in § 1983 and is not suable under the statute.

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

Goodwin v. Hughes · filed 2020-06-12

Thus, § 1983 does not create a cause of action against NDCS Medical.

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

Quick v. Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation · filed 2020-06-23

Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot bring a § 1983 claim against IDFPR, and IDFPR must be dismissed from Count II, with prejudice.

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

Diemond 703441 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-06-26

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

Section 1983 permits suit only against a person, and a state is not a person under the statute.

Stewart v. Canyon County Detention Center · filed 2020-06-29

Finally, only a “person” may be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a state is not considered a “person” under that statute.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against the Michigan Department of Corrections because the department is not a person under the statute.

Cruse v. Ozukwe · filed 2020-07-10

The Michigan Department of Corrections itself is not a proper party Defendant to this lawsuit. See Parker v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F. App’x 922, 923 (6th Cir. 2003) (“the [Michigan Department of Corrections] is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983”); Hix v. Tennessee Dept. of Corrections, 196 F. App’x 350, 355-356 (6th Cir. 2006).

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state department of corrections because state agencies are not persons under the section.

Kelly v. Department of Corrections · filed 2020-07-13

“[S]tates and their agencies are not ‘persons’ subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983.” ... The plaintiff cannot sue the Department of Corrections, and the court will dismiss it as a defendant.

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

Warren v. Illinois Department of Corrections · filed 2020-07-14

However, Plaintiff cannot maintain his suit against IDOC because it is a state agency. The Supreme Court has held that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”

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

Torres v. DOC · filed 2020-07-20

State agencies, however, are not persons within the meaning of section 1983.

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

Foster v. State of Washington · filed 2020-07-21

As a state agency, L&I is “not amenable to suit under” § 1983.

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

Williams v. State of Illinois · filed 2020-07-22

These claims are barred against the State of Illinois and the IDOC because “a state and its agencies are not suable ‘persons’ within the meaning of section 1983.” Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012). Such claims are only proper against individual state actors. Id. Consequently, the motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against the State of Illinois and the IDOC.

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

McCoy v. Smith · filed 2020-07-22

The complaint will be dismissed against the Michigan Department of Corrections, because it is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus, the Eleventh Amendment bars any civil rights action against the Michigan Department of Corrections.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal constitutional claim against a state corrections department because the department is not a person subject to suit.

Morales-Vasquez v. PA DOC · filed 2020-07-28

As we concluded in Shore, we conclude here, that because Vasquez unmistakably brought this action solely against DOC, any federal constitutional claim brought pursuant to Section 1983 fails as a matter of law.

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

McGlory 444390 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-07-30

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

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

Butler v. Leighton · filed 2020-07-31

The complaint will be dismissed against the Michigan Department of Corrections, because it is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus, the Eleventh Amendment bars any civil rights action against the Michigan Department of Corrections.

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

LaRue v. WV Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2020-08-03

The United States Supreme Court has made clear that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” ... Thus, the magistrate judge correctly found that the WVDCR, a state agency of West Virginia, is immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment.

States and governmental entities that are arms of a state are not suable persons under Section 1983.

LeFever v. Castellanos · filed 2020-08-03

The § 1983 claims alleged against NSP and Trooper Trevino in his official capacity will therefore be dismissed with prejudice. ... In addition, States or governmental entities that are considered arms of the state are not suable “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

CALDWELL v. VIGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT · filed 2020-08-05

State agencies like DCS are not "persons" who may be sued under § 1983. ... County branches of DCS are treated as extensions of that state agency, so county branches like Vigo County DCS are not subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Santiago v. Annucci · filed 2020-08-05

However, state agencies, including DOCCS, and state officials acting in their official capacities are generally not “nersons” subject to suit under § 1983.

State officials sued in their official capacities are not proper § 1983 defendants.

Green Valley Special Util Dist v. Donna Nelson, et · filed 2020-08-07

In other words, the PUC Officials are not proper § 1983 defendants either.

States and their departments are not persons who may be sued for money damages under § 1983.

Brown 367927 v. Just Detention International · filed 2020-08-10

In addition, the State of Michigan (either in its own capacity or acting through the MDOC) is not a “person” who may be sued under § 1983 for money damages.

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

Taylor v. Washington Department of Corrections · filed 2020-08-17

The DOC and the State of Washington are not a proper defendants. Section 1983 applies to the actions of “persons” acting under the color of state law. ... Therefore, the State of Washington and the DOC cannot be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a state corrections department or its prison as a person that can be sued.

Pierce v. Illinois Department of Correction · filed 2020-08-19

Based on this authority, IDOC and Pinckneyville are not “person[s]” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act and shall be dismissed from this action.

Section 1983 does not allow suit against a state corrections department or its prison because neither is a person under the statute.

Purnell v. Wexford Health Sources · filed 2020-08-26

Based on this authority, IDOC and Shawnee are not “person[s]” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act and shall be dismissed from this action.

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

Macocha v. Lake County Dept of Child Services · filed 2020-08-27

However, because a state agency is not a “person” for the purpose of a constitutional claim brought under § 1983, any such claims that Macocha may be bringing fail against DCS, the sole defendant named in this lawsuit.

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

Meeks v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-08-31

The complaint must also be dismissed against the Michigan Department of Corrections, because it is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus, the Eleventh Amendment would bar plaintiff’s civil rights action against the Michigan Department of Corrections.

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

Gunter v. Doe · filed 2020-08-31

NCDPS is not a “person” who is amenable to suit under § 1983, and therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed insofar as Plaintiff attempts to name NCDPS as a Defendant.

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

McPeek v. Klimek · filed 2020-08-31

The Parole Board is an arm of the State of South Dakota and, as such, is not subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency because the agency is an arm of the State.

Wije v. David A. Burns, the University of Texas at Austin, Jane Doe, and John Doe · filed 2020-09-03

Therefore, UT, as a state agency, is not subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

Kelly v. Department of Corrections · filed 2020-09-14

“[S]tates and their agencies are not ‘persons’ subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983.” ... The plaintiff cannot sue the Department of Corrections, and the court will dismiss it as a defendant.

Section 1983 does not permit claims for monetary or injunctive relief against a state or its agencies because they are not persons under the statute.

Saylor v. Jeffreys · filed 2020-09-14

In short, Saylor’s § 1983 claims for monetary and injunctive relief cannot be maintained against the State of Nebraska or NDCS.

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

Len v. Secretary of State of Illinois · filed 2020-09-16

Plaintiff’s claims are barred against the State of Illinois and the Office of the Secretary of State because “a state and its agencies are not suable ‘persons’ within the meaning of section 1983.” Thomas, 697 F.3d at 613.

A state superior court is an arm of the state and is not subject to § 1983 liability.

Villalta v. Superior Court of California County of Orange · filed 2020-09-29

A superior court is “an arm of the state not subject to § 1983 liability.” ... Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff names Superior Court of California, County of Orange, as a defendant, Plaintiff fails to state a claim.

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

(PC) Stuckey v. State of California · filed 2020-09-29

States and state agencies are not “persons” within the meaning of the statute and are entitled to immunity under the 11th Amendment.

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

(PC) Hill v. CDCR, Department of State Hospitals · filed 2020-09-29

States and state agencies are not “persons” within the meaning of the statute and are entitled to immunity under the 11th Amendment.

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

(PC) Hill v. McGeffen · filed 2020-09-29

States and state agencies are not “persons” within the meaning of the statute and are entitled to immunity under the 11th Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state agency because an agency exercising state power is not a person subject to suit under the section.

Collier v. Preston · filed 2020-10-06

The complaint fails to state a claim against MDOC because an agency exercising state power is not a “person” subject to a suit under § 1983.

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

Caballero-Zuniga v. Sarpy County Nebraska · filed 2020-10-06

Finally, Defendant Sarpy County District Court is not an entity that can be sued under section 1983.

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

New 419145 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-10-13

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

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

Pierre v. Vasquez · filed 2020-10-14

At the threshold, Pierre cannot succeed on the merits of his claims against the Department because it is not a “person” for purposes of vindicating constitutional rights through a Section 1983 claim.

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

Frieszell v. Department of Corrections · filed 2020-10-14

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

A state corrections department is not a person who may be sued for money damages under § 1983.

Tillie 636229 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-10-14

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

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

Burton 495156 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-10-14

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

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against these state agencies, but a plaintiff may plead a claim against a named defendant in an individual capacity.

Morgan v. Mohawk Valley Psychiatric Center · filed 2020-10-15

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim to the extent that it sues Defendants for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and it is further ... ORDERED that any such Amended Complaint shall be forwarded to Magistrate Judge Baxter for his review.

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

FARMER v. GDCP · filed 2020-10-16

To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to state a claim against the Georgia Department of Corrections, this entity is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action. In particular, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or its agencies.

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

Miller v. Lamont · filed 2020-10-19

Because the Department of Correction is not a person within the meaning of section 1983, any claims asserted against it are dismissed as lacking an arguable legal basis.

Section 1983 does not permit suits for money damages against state agencies.

Gayden v. IDOC · filed 2020-10-22

However, these are state government agencies not subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

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

Brown v. Carr · filed 2020-10-26

But “states and their agencies are not ‘persons’ subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983.” ... The Court will dismiss both the DOC and Racine since they are not proper defendants.

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

Vaughan v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services · filed 2020-10-27

Regardless, DPSCS, like RCI, is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides in relevant part: ... Therefore, the complaint as to DPSCS will be dismissed.

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

Olona v. Warden Mahr · filed 2020-10-28

States or governmental entities that are considered arms of the state are not suable “persons” within the meaning of | 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989), and suits for money damages against the state or its agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

PEREZ v. LITTLE · filed 2020-10-29

Since SCI Chester is a prison within Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections, it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

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

Kenney v. Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas · filed 2020-10-30

Since the state and its agencies, including the University, are not “persons” under § 1983, and Ms. Kenney has named no individual defendants, Ms. Kenney’s § 1983 claims are barred.

Section 1983 does not permit suits for money damages against state agencies.

Bonds v. Big Muddy River Correctional Center · filed 2020-10-30

He has not named any individual that allegedly violated his constitutional rights, but instead names Big Muddy and IDOC, which are state government agencies not subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

State government agencies cannot be sued for money damages under § 1983.

Resendez v. Wexford Health Care Services · filed 2020-10-30

However, these are state government agencies not subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state agency because an arm of the state is not a person under the statute.

Lane v. Washington Department of Corrections · filed 2020-11-02

Therefore, the Washington Department of Corrections for Women, as an arm of the state, cannot be sued under § 1983.

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

Holloway v. Wickman · filed 2020-11-05

“[S]tates and their agencies are not ‘persons’ subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Johnson v. Supreme Court of Ill.,165 F.3d 1140, 1141 (7th Cir. 1999). This means that “[n]either the State of Wisconsin nor the State’s Department of Corrections is a proper defendant.” Andreola v. Wisconsin, 171 F. App’x 514, 515 (7th Cir. 2006). Green Bay is one of several institutions within the Department of Corrections. Green Bay Correctional Institution is not a proper defendant and the court will dismiss it.

Section 1983 does not permit suits for money damages against state agencies.

Reid v. IDOC · filed 2020-11-11

Plaintiff names IDOC as a defendant but it is a state government agency not subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against a state agency because the agency is not a person subject to suit.

Bacon v. Department of Human Services · filed 2020-11-11

Indeed, DHS is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. Accordingly, to the extent Claim Three asserts a cause of action against DHS, it is dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a New York State entity.

Curry-Malcolm v. Rochester City School District · filed 2020-11-12

Ms. Malcolm’s § 1983 claim against RCSD fails as a matter of law because RCSD is a New York State entity.

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

Walker v. Pocahontas State Correctional Center · filed 2020-11-13

Because Pocahontas is properly considered an arm of the Commonwealth of Virginia, it cannot be sued under § 1983 either.