42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 remedies deprivations of federally protected rights caused by persons acting under color of state law.

McHale v. Cornell University · filed 1985-10-18

provides a remedy for deprivations of federally protected rights when caused by persons acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 imposes liability on state actors for injuries resulting from conduct that deprives others of constitutional rights.

Hudson v. Johnson · filed 1985-10-21

which imposes liability on persons acting under color of state law for injuries resulting from actions which deprive others of their constitutional rights.

A § 1983 property claim requires a valid property interest, deprivation under color of state law, and lack of due process.

Sherrod v. Palm Beach County School Board · filed 1985-10-24

To state a cause of action under section 1983, the plaintiff must show that he had a valid property interest; that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived him of that interest; and that the deprivation was accomplished without due process.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprived the plaintiff of a right or privilege secured by federal law.

Riley v. Jeffes · filed 1985-11-21

As the district court noted, a section 1983 action requires that (1) the conduct complained of must be committed by a person acting under color of state law and, (2) it must have deprived the plaintiff of a right or privilege secured by the Constitution or the law of the United States.

A Section 1983 claim requires action under color of state law and deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Williams v. The City of Boston · filed 1986-02-25

To state a claim for relief under section 1983, the plaintiffs must allege (1) that the defendants acted “under color of state law” and (2) that the defendants deprived them of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires both action under color of state law and deprivation of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution.

Timson v. Bobbie M. Hall · filed 1986-03-10

In any Sec. 1983 action two elements are essential: (1) the conduct complained of must be committed by a person acting under the color or state law; and (2) the conduct must deprive a person of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A Section 1983 claim requires deprivation of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution.

Oaks v. District Court of State of RI · filed 1986-04-01

One of the essential elements required in order to maintain a § 1983 claim, however, is that a litigant must allege and show deprivation of a right “secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 requires both deprivation of a federal constitutional right and action under color of state law by the same person.

Wright v. Southern Mono Hospital District · filed 1986-04-01

By its terms, the plaintiff must establish that some person denied decedent a federal constitutional right and that that same person acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides a civil remedy against people who, under color of state law, deprive others of federally protected rights.

Sommer v. Bihr · filed 1986-04-02

provides a civil remedy against individuals who, under color of state law, deprive others of federally-protected rights.

A Section 1983 complaint must factually allege both state action and conduct violating a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Frankenfield v. Kirschner · filed 1986-04-08

Second, in order to maintain an action under § 1983, the complaint must allege the two essential elements of such a claim; state action and conduct which violates rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A Section 1983 plaintiff must prove conduct under color of state law that deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Torres-Hernandez v. Padilla · filed 1986-04-10

To prevail in an action brought under section 1983, two essential elements must be proven: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person or persons acting under color of state law; and (2) that this conduct deprived a person ... or persons of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A Section 1983 complaint must allege both deprivation of a federal right and action under color of state or territorial law.

Bonilla v. Rodriguez · filed 1986-04-21

Two allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: “First, a plaintiff must allege that same person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.”

A § 1983 plaintiff must show both deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and action under color of state law.

Vaughn v. Looney · filed 1986-05-13

To establish a Sec. 1983 claim, a litigant must have been deprived of some right secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, and the defendants must have been acting under color of state law.

A due-process claim under § 1983 requires state action, a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest, deprivation of that interest, and inadequate process.

Meyer v. University of Washington · filed 1986-05-15

Under section 1983, four elements are necessary for recovery: (1) the conduct complained of must be committed by a person acting under color of state law; (2) there must be constitutionally protected property or liberty interests at issue; (3) there must have been a deprivation of a protected interest; and (4) the deprivation must have occurred without due process.

A section 1983 claim requires deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

State Management Ass'n of Connecticut, Inc. v. O'Neill · filed 1986-05-20

Such a claim consists of two elements: (1) that the plaintiff has been deprived of a right secured by the United States constitution or a federal law; and (2) that the defendant deprived him of this right while acting under color of a state statute.

Section 1983 requires deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Clemans v. BEAVERHEAD COUNTY, MONT. · filed 1986-05-30

By the terms of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, two allegations are required in order to state a cause of action.. First, plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, plaintiff must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state law.

A § 1983 claim requires a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law and action under color of state law.

Rick Morgan v. City of Rawlins and Abe Deherrera · filed 1986-06-03

We have recently defined the elements of a claim under § 1983 as a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law and action occurring under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under color of state law.

Gorra Realty, Inc. v. Jetmore · filed 1986-06-10

A § 1983 action requires a finding that a person has suffered a “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” because of the conduct of a person acting “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory.”

A section 1983 plaintiff must establish state action that deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Tiffany v. Ariz. Interscholastic Ass'n, Inc. · filed 1986-06-12

To succeed in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant acted under color of law to deprive the plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a person acting under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Jordan v. City of Oakville · filed 1986-06-12

To prevail on this claim, he must show that a person or persons, acting under color of state law, deprived him of a right secured by the United States Constitution or by federal laws.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Grant Rivers, Jr. v. Campbell · filed 1986-06-17

Insofar as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 affords a remedy for deprivation of federally-protected rights by a person acting under color of state law, the initial inquiry in a section 1983 action must focus on whether the essential elements of a section 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether the conduct deprived the person of rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Williams v. City of Lancaster, Pa. · filed 1986-06-18

In any action brought under section 1983, “the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements to a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

A section 1983 claim requires deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Abernathy v. City of Cartersville, Ga. · filed 1986-06-30

Two allegations are required to state a cause of action under section 1983: 1). The plaintiff must allege that some person deprived him of a federal right; 2). The plaintiff must allege that the person who deprived him of that right acted under color of state law.

A § 1983 plaintiff must show action under color of state law and deprivation of a federal statutory or constitutional right.

Porter v. City of Detroit · filed 1986-07-03

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show two things: 1) that the defendant acted under color of state law, and 2) that the. defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, either statutory or constitutional.

Causation is an essential element of a § 1983 claim.

Morton v. Becker · filed 1986-07-07

Causation is an essential element of a section 1983 cause of action.

A § 1983 claim requires deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Robbins v. Robb · filed 1986-07-25

To state a claim for relief under Section 1983, plaintiff must allege: (1) that some person has deprived him of a federal right, and (2) that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 creates no substantive rights and requires a deprivation of a civil right secured elsewhere.

Banerjee v. Roberts · filed 1986-07-31

“§ 1983 does not provide any substantive rights at all” but merely “authorizes a cause of action based on the deprivation of civil rights guaranteed by other Acts of Congress.” ... It is therefore evident that “one cannot go into court and claim a ‘violation of § 1983’ —for § 1983 by itself does not protect anyone against anything.”

A Section 1983 plaintiff must prove deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state or territorial law.

Oates v. District of Columbia · filed 1986-10-03

In meeting that burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that she was deprived of a federal right and that the person depriving her of that right acted under color of a state or territorial law.

A Section 1983 plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under color of state law and thereby violated a right protected by the federal Constitution or federal law.

McDonald v. Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners · filed 1986-10-22

As a prerequisite to maintaining a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must establish: 1) that the defendants were acting under color of state law, and 2) that while acting under color of state law the defendants violated rights of the plaintiff that are protected by the United States Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 is remedial rather than a source of substantive rights, so a complaint must identify the independent federal constitutional or statutory right allegedly violated.

Brown v. Town of Allenstown · filed 1986-11-20

Section 1983 does not, standing alone, establish substantive rights; it is a remedial statute which creates a remedy when federally protected constitutional or statutory rights are violated. ... Therefore, in order to state a cognizable § 1983 claim, the pleading must identify the federally protected right.

A § 1983 due-process claim requires a deprivation under color of state law of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest without procedural safeguards.

Salisbury v. Stone · filed 1986-12-23

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations, under color of state law, of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. ... A claimant alleging a deprivation of due process rights must demonstrate that either a property or a liberty interest clearly protected by the due process clause was divested, under color of state law, without procedural safeguards.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires allegations both of a conspiracy under color of state law and of an actual deprivation of constitutional rights.

Chloree Vaden, D/B/A Ree's Confectioneries v. Village of Maywood, Illinois, a Municipal Corporation, Defendants · filed 1987-01-07

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Vaden must allege not only that the defendants conspired under color of state law to deprive her of her constitutional rights, but also that she was in fact deprived of those rights.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct by a person acting under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Wagner v. Township of Harmar · filed 1987-01-21

“[I]n any § 1983 action, the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements to a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

A § 1983 claim does not require an allegation of racial or other class-based discriminatory animus.

Oberndorf v. City and County of Denver · filed 1987-01-27

Obviously, the § 1983 action cannot be dismissed for lack of racial animus, however, the § 1985 claim must be dismissed for that reason.

A § 1983 plaintiff must prove both violation of a federal right and but-for causation of the complained-of injury.

Button v. Harden · filed 1987-03-03

Section 1983 is a tort statute. To prevail under it a plaintiff must show not only that his federal rights were violated but also that, had it not been for the violation, the injury of which he complains would not have occurred, ... and the injury of which Button complains is his dismissal.

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish a statutory or constitutional right and a violation of that right.

Barnes v. Smith · filed 1987-03-05

To prevail under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish a statutory or constitutional right and a violation of that right.

A Section 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Daniels v. Stovall · filed 1987-05-13

Generally, a section 1983 claim requires a showing of conduct committed under color of state law which has deprived a plaintiff of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution and laws.

Section 1983 supplies no substantive rights and requires the defendant to have deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Charles v. Odum · filed 1987-06-15

Section 1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights____” ... Rather, recovery under § 1983 “is premised upon a showing, first, that the defendant has denied the plaintiff a constitutional or federal statutory right____”

A Section 1983 claim requires deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Duerscherl v. Foley · filed 1987-06-25

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs must allege and show that they were deprived of a federal right by a person acting in the color of state law.

A § 1983 claim requires deprivation of a federal right by a defendant acting under color of law.

Cottrill v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n · filed 1987-07-07

To establish a claim under section 1983, there are two jurisdictional prerequisites. First, plaintiff must have been deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. ... Second, it must be alleged that the defendants were acting under color of law when they committed these constitutional deprivations.

A § 1983 plaintiff must allege deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right under color of state law.

Gravitt v. Pogats · filed 1987-08-10

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must allege: 1) that he was deprived of a right secured by the federal constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) that the deprivation was cause under color of state law.

Section 1983 supplies a remedy for federal constitutional or statutory rights but does not itself create civil rights.

Allen v. Cook · filed 1987-08-17

The Civil Rights Act does not, standing alone, create any civil rights of citizens; rather, it provides a remedy for rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both a deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action under color of state law.

Everett v. Napper · filed 1987-12-15

To prevail in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Everett must establish that defendants both deprived him of a right secured by the United States Constitution or federal laws and that the action taken by the defendants was under color of state law.

A § 1983 cause of action requires conduct under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Cholette v. Town of Kure Beach · filed 1987-12-22

There are two essential elements of a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:1) the conduct complained of was carried out under color of state law, and 2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both deprivation of a constitutional right and action under color of state law.

Burch v. Rame · filed 1988-01-11

To prevail in his civil rights action, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Burch must establish that the defendants deprived him of a constitutional right and that their actions were taken under color of state law.

To state a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff need allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Sclavenitis v. City of Cherry Hills Village Board of Adjustment & Appeals · filed 1988-01-21

In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, all that a plaintiff need allege is: 1) that he was deprived of a federal right and (2) that such deprivation was effected by one acting under color of state law.

A § 1983 plaintiff must prove that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution.

Schaill Ex Rel. Kross v. Tippecanoe County School Corp. · filed 1988-02-01

To bring a successful § 1983 action, the plaintiffs must prove that the defendants have deprived them of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution while acting under color of state law.

A Section 1983 plaintiff must plead both a violation of a federal constitutional right and action under color of state law.

Maxberry v. The Legal Section of the Credit Bureau of Cincinnati · filed 1988-02-03

Upon consideration, we agree with the district court that plaintiff has failed to plead a violation of a federal constitutional right under color of state law. Resultantly, plaintiff has not stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a federal right; enforcement of the NCAA drug-testing program did not meet either requirement.

O'HALLORAN v. University of Washington · filed 1988-02-25

Not only has Plaintiff failed to state the first element of her Section 1983 claim— without which the claim fails—she has failed as well to demonstrate the second element: that the conduct complained of deprived her of a right, privilege, or immunity secured to her by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish deprivation of a federally protected right by a person acting under color of state law.

Wintercreek Apartments v. City of St. Peters · filed 1988-03-21

In order to prevail on their § 1983 claim plaintiffs must establish that they have been deprived of a federally protected right, privilege or immunity by persons acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead that a defendant deprived him of a federal right under color of state law; an inmate does not plead deprivation of a liberty interest merely by alleging that urine samples were kept unsecured without alleging his own sample was switched.

Lang v. Seabold · filed 1988-04-19

To be entitled to recovery pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must plead two elements: (1) "that the defendant deprived him of a right secured him by the 'Constitution and laws' of the United States," and (2) "that the defendant deprived him of this constitutional right 'under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any Territory or State.' " Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970). Appellant's complaint fails to allege the first element. The complaint does not plead the deprivation of a liberty interest.

An allegation that a municipal ordinance causes an unconstitutional taking without compensation does not, by itself, plead a Section 1983 civil rights claim.

State Ex Rel. Pitz v. City of Columbus · filed 1988-11-22

Paragraph twenty-three of his amended complaint alleges that Chapter 3385 of the Columbus City Code, as applied to the plaintiff’s property, is an unconstitutional taking of his property without compensation. This allegation is not a civil rights claim pursuant to Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code.

A section 1983 due process claim requires proof that conduct under color of state law caused a deprivation of constitutional rights without due process.

Lassiter v. Covington · filed 1988-12-08

To sustain his claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Lassiter has the burden of establishing at least two requisite elements: (1) Covington's conduct was under the color of state law and (2) Covington's conduct caused a deprivation of Lassiter's constitutional rights without due process of law.

Section 1983 permits a citizen to recover damages from a person who, acting under color of state law, knowingly deprives the citizen of constitutional rights.

Baird v. Biagiotti · filed 1989-01-09

3. Section 1983 provides that any citizen may recover money damages against any person who under the color of state law knowingly subjects that citizen to the deprivation of any rights protected by the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by federal law or the Constitution.

Mrs. W. v. Tirozzi · filed 1989-02-07

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs must allege a deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a constitutional or federally protected right.

Williams v. McClain · filed 1989-03-15

It is axiomatic that to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976), a plaintiff must allege the deprivation of a constitutional or federally protected right.

Section 1983 liability requires deprivation of a constitutional right under color of state law.

Conroy v. Village of Lisle · filed 1989-07-12

Any Section 1983 liability on Village’s part hinges on Conroys’ ability to show they were deprived of a constitutional right under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a protected right, privilege or immunity by defendants acting under color of state law.

Roberts v. Dormund Corp. · filed 1989-08-03

Dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) was proper because Roberts did not allege any facts which would give rise to a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. To state a claim, Roberts must allege that he was deprived of a protected right, privilege or immunity and that the deprivation resulted from defendants' conduct while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead and prove deprivation of a federal right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Arbing v. Michael P. Lane James Thieret · filed 1989-11-15

To establish a right of relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the defendant deprived him of such right while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under color of state authority.

Willing v. Lake Orion Community Schools Board of Trustees · filed 1996-05-06

To state a prima facie claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must establish that she was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or by federal law and that she was subjected to this deprivation by a person acting under color of state authority.

To state a claim for damages under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal statute.

Rason v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development · filed 1996-05-06

To state a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) the defendants acted under color of state law; and 2) that the defendants deprived him of a right secured by the United States Constitution or federal statutes.

A complaint states a § 1983 claim when it alleges that defendants acting under color of state law violated the plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights.

Gordon v. Villegas, No. Cv90 270839 5 (Dec. 24, 1990) · filed 1990-12-24

Furthermore, the first count, construed favorably to the plaintiffs for the purposes of the motion, contains factual allegations sufficient to support a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 : the defendants, under color of state law, are alleged to have violated the plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead and prove that a defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federal right while acting under color of state law.

Tommy Wayne Myers, Ola Myers v. The Ones Who Got Over $300 From the Sevier County Bank · filed 1990-02-12

To establish a right of relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove that 1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) that defendant deprived him of such right while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege that a defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a right protected by federal law.

Triad Associates, Inc. v. Chicago Housing Authority · filed 1990-02-15

Thus, in order to withstand a motion to dismiss, Triad’s complaint in Counts I — III must allege facts which, if believed, would show that the CHA was acting under color of state law and that its conduct deprived Triad of a right which was actually protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person deprived the plaintiff of a federal right while acting under color of state or territorial law.

Call v. City of West Jordan · filed 1990-03-07

Section 1983 requires two allegations to state a cause of action: “First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.”

A Section 1983 complaint must identify a federally protected right violated by the alleged conduct.

West Coast Theater Corporation v. City Of Portland · filed 1990-03-26

West Coast's complaint fails to identify any federally protected right violated in connection with the state court eminent domain proceeding to warrant a Section 1983 claim.

A Section 1983 claimant must show conduct by a person acting under color of state law that deprived the claimant of a constitutional right.

Brogan v. San Mateo County · filed 1990-04-18

To make a claim under section 1983, Brogan must show “that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and ... this conduct deprived [him] of a constitutional right.”

Section 1983 requires a person acting under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law.

McDarby v. Dinkins · filed 1990-07-02

To show a violation of section 1983, it must be proven that a person or persons acting under color of state law deprived a plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 creates no substantive rights and requires a plaintiff to allege that someone acting under color of law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law.

INNER CITY LEASING & TRUCKING, CO. v. City of Gary, Ind. · filed 1990-07-11

The terminology of § 1983 “creates no substantive rights; it merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere.” ... Consequently, ICT must allege facts sufficient to show that the City, under color of law, deprived ICT of rights secured by the Constitution or other laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires an allegation that the defendant acted under color of law and deprived the plaintiff of a federal right; an express allegation of action under color of state law satisfies the first requirement.

White v. Morris · filed 1990-08-08

A complaint alleging Section 1983 as a basis for the complaint must meet two requirements: ... (1) there must be an allegation that the conduct in question was performed by a person under color of law; and ... (2) the conduct must have deprived the person of a federal right." ... In the case at bar, appellant's complaint unquestionably satisfied the first requirement since it explicitly alleged that appellees were acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove deprivation of a federal right under color of law.

St. Agnes Hospital of Baltimore, Inc. v. Riddick · filed 1990-09-10

In a Section 1983 action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant deprived plaintiff of a right secured by the “Constitution and laws” of the United States and that such a deprivation was “under color of law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Dyer v. Vaughn · filed 1990-11-15

Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that he was deprived of a right secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove conduct under color of state law that deprived a person of rights secured by federal law.

Magnuson v. City of Hickory Hills · filed 1991-05-29

In any Sec. 1983 action, the plaintiff must prove that the conduct complained of was committed under color of state law and that "this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state or territorial law.

Williams v. Hardy · filed 1991-06-07

Two allegations must be made to state a claim under that provision. “First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.” (Gomez v. Toledo (1980), 446 U.S. 635, 640, 64 L. Ed. 2d 572, 577, 100 S. Ct. 1920, 1923.) The executor has not properly stated a cause of action, nor do we believe that any exists for a violation of civil rights.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that causes the deprivation of a federal right and resulting injury or damages.

C & a Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown · filed 1991-07-11

Thus, to establish a claim under Section 1983, plaintiffs would have to convince the trier of fact that (1) the conduct complained of was committed by persons acting under color of state law; (2) this conduct deprived plaintiffs of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution or laws of the United States; and (3) that defendants’ acts were the cause of injuries and/or consequent damages sustained by plaintiffs.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show both a violation of a federal constitutional right and that the individual responsible acted under color of state law.

Gonzales v. City of Espanola, Richard Guillen, Leo Montoya, Gene Aldaz, in Their Individual Capacities Only · filed 1991-10-08

In order to prevail in a § 1983 action in federal court, a plaintiff must show both that a federal constitutional right was violated and that the individual violating that right did so under color of state law.

A § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of constitutional rights, and proximately caused injury and damages.

Jones v. Fazio · filed 1991-10-22

This instruction told the jury that to recover Jones had to prove: 1) that Fazio performed acts which deprived him of constitutional rights; 2) that Fazio acted under the color of state law; 3) that Jones sustained injuries and damages as a result of Fazio's conduct; and 4) that Fazio's conduct proximately caused Jones' injuries and damages. Jones complains that this instruction lumped all his claims together, making it difficult for the jury to distinguish between the no probable cause and excessive force claims. But the instruction correctly sets out in general what a § 1983 plaintiff has to prove; the other instructions referred to above adequately informed the jury of the precise details of Jones' claims.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law.

State Ex Rel. Colorado State Claims Board of the Division of Risk Management v. DeFoor · filed 1992-02-03

In order to state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant acted under color of state law and that the defendant’s action deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the federal constitution or federal laws.

Section 1983 does not require proof of an abuse of governmental power separate from proof of a constitutional violation.

Collins v. City of Harker Heights · filed 1992-02-26

Our cases do not support the Court of Appeals reading of § 1983 as requiring proof of an abuse of governmental power separate and apart from the proof of a constitutional violation.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a constitutional right under color of state law.

Lombard v. Board of Educ. of City of New York · filed 1992-03-03

In this regard, the elements of the plaintiff’s direct Fourteenth Amendment cause of action are identical with the elements of a Section 1983 action based on the same alleged constitutional violation. First, the plaintiff must allege that the Board deprived him of a constitutional right, and second, he must allege that the Board deprived him of that right under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federal statutory or constitutional right.

United of Omaha Life Insurance Company v. Solomon · filed 1992-03-30

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must show two things: (1) that the defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, either statutory or constitutional.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish that defendants acted under color of state law and personally deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Gavin v. McGinnis · filed 1992-04-03

Based on the facts alleged here, under section 1983 plaintiff must establish that the defendants, under color of state law, personally deprived plaintiff of a federal constitutional liberty or property interest without due process of law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law caused by a person acting under color of law.

Partington v. Gedan · filed 1992-04-14

Under Section 1983, a would be litigant must allege (1) that he or she has suffered a “deprivation of ... rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,” and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of law.

Section 1983 requires a claimant to allege deprivation of a federal constitutional right by a person acting under color of state law.

Duong v. County of Arapahoe · filed 1992-04-16

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the claimant need allege only (1) that some person deprived the complainant of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Federal Constitution and (2) that such person acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of a federal right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Harris v. Blanchard · filed 1992-05-07

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege 1) that he was deprived of a right secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States, and 2) that the deprivation was caused by a person while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by an actor operating under state law.

Southeast Kansas Community Action Program Incorporated v. Secretary Of Agriculture Of The United States · filed 1992-06-22

In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both the deprivation of a federal right and that the actor was operating under state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege facts showing that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Mayer v. C. Diane Bishop, Supt. Public Instruction Natalio Sabl Dan W. Rehurch Neal Diltz Gay Hollis Bec · filed 1992-08-06

To state a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege facts showing a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege facts showing that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right, privilege, or immunity.

Friend v. Norton · filed 1992-08-07

To state a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege facts which show a deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right protected by federal law.

Coleman v. Leonardi · filed 1992-08-17

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove that a person acting under color of state law committed an act that deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires an allegation that someone acting under color of state law or custom deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.

Poss v. City of North Augusta, South Carolina · filed 1992-10-22

In order to state a claim pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, however, it is necessary to allege that the plaintiff was deprived of a constitutional right by one who was acting under color of state law or custom.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege facts showing that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right, privilege, or immunity.

Zichko v. State of Idaho · filed 1992-10-28

To establish a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege facts showing a deprivation of a constitutional right, privilege, or immunity by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law and deprivation of a federal right.

Farmer v. Crews · filed 1992-11-09

In any § 1983 action, the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements to a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... In the present case, the first element is satisfied.

Section 1983 requires a claimant to allege deprivation of a federally protected right by a person acting under color of state law.

Rather v. Conte · filed 1992-12-03

In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a party must allege the denial of a right protected by the federal constitution by a-person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege facts showing that a person acting under color of state law deprived her of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Downs v. Eldon Vail, Superintendent, Wccw Charlotte Blackwell, Superintendent, Emcf Robert Schiedler, Su · filed 1992-12-03

To state a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege facts showing that a person acting under color of state law deprived her of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Anderson v. Ron Angelone, Department of Prisons Accounting Office and Staff John Does, Jane Does of Prison · filed 1993-01-13

To state a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege facts showing a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Bade v. State of Washington Booth Gardner Amos E. Reed · filed 1993-02-22

To state a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege facts showing a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

To state a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Allen v. James Rowland, Director, California Department of Corrections · filed 1993-02-22

To state a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege facts showing a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege facts showing that a defendant acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right protected by federal law.

Morris v. Crow · filed 1993-03-12

A plaintiff seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must allege facts demonstrating that defendant’s act or omission, performed under color of state law, deprived him or her of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a right secured by federal law by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Kirwan v. Larned Mental Health · filed 1993-03-19

To state a valid cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the constitution and laws of the United States while the defendant was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not require a showing of threats, intimidation, or coercion.

Courville Ex Rel. Ypina v. Town of Barre · filed 1993-04-16

Section 1983 contains no similar requirement of a showing of threats, intimidation, or coercion.

Section 1983 requires a claimant to allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

James C. Isakson Robert D. Isakson Jci, Unic v. First National Bank in Sioux Falls Robert E. Hayes Davenport, Evans, Hur · filed 1993-04-23

Appellants have failed to state a claim under section 1983 because they failed to “ ‘allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” See id. at 986 *1099 (quoting West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2254, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988)).

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Perry C. Butler v. Marshall · filed 1993-06-04

To state a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege facts showing a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Armond D. Smith v. James Jackson, Chief, Columbus Police Department Betsy Dawson, Caseworker Supervisor of the Franklin · filed 1993-07-02

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: 1) that he was deprived of a right secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States, and 2) that the deprivation was caused by a person while acting under color of state law. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978); Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477, 479 (6th Cir.1991). Absent either element, a claim will not be stated.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of rights secured by federal law.

Oatess v. Norris · filed 1994-01-26

In order to state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a party must establish two essential elements: 1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and 2) that the conduct deprived the party of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right protected by the Constitution or federal law.

Hill v. State of Arizona, Arizona Department of Corrections William Benge Thomas Kyele C. Aydett · filed 1994-02-22

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish that a person acting under color of state law committed an act that deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires proof that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a right protected by federal law.

Sanders v. Susan McElroy Correctional Officer S. Bray, Correctional Lieutenant M. Leatherman, Correctional Lieu · filed 1994-06-08

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Sanders must prove that prison officials were (1) "acting under color of state law [and] (2) committed an act that deprive [him] of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1439 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 972 (1992). Therefore, the district court properly applied federal law rather than state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal right.

Grinols v. State of Alaska · filed 1994-06-30

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a constitutional or federal right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Blocker v. Hall · filed 1994-07-25

To state a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 requires deprivation of a federally protected interest by a person acting under color of state law; a state parole board acts under color of state law.

Middleton v. McGinnis · filed 1994-08-11

Plaintiffs must demonstrate, to prevail in a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that conduct which 1) deprived them of a federally protected interest was 2) committed by a person acting under color of state law. ... Though the Michigan legislature and Parole Board clearly act under color of state law, there is no constitutional liberty interest breached solely by an administrative decision not to hold parole hearings which were no longer statutorily required, and not necessary to or inevitably followed by a decision to release.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federally protected right.

McCall v. Darryl Gates, Police Chief, and Wayne Stovall · filed 1994-09-16

To make out a cause of action under section 1983, McCall must show that Officer Stovall: 1) acted under color of state law and 2) deprived her of a federally protected right.

Section 1983 requires a claim to identify a specific federal constitutional or statutory right; it does not allow a catch-all constitutional tort claim.

Brown v. Borough of Mahaffey, Pa. · filed 1994-09-30

The plaintiffs must assert a specific federal constitutional or statutory right in order to maintain a claim under the civil rights laws. ... The plaintiffs have asserted several constitutional violations; they cannot attach a "catch-all" tort claim as a fallback if those specific constitutional claims fail.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove deprivation of a federal right by defendants acting under color of state law.

Warren v. Humphrey · filed 1995-01-13

(4) To recover under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must prove: ... (a) That he has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. ... (b) The defendants deprived them of this right acting under color of any statute of the state.

Section 1983 requires proof that a person acting under color of state law committed an act that deprived the claimant of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Daniel v. George Kaiser, Dr., State of Nevada Department of Prisons, Dr. Charles Kilduff and Mark Wooley Terry · filed 1995-02-02

Section 1983 requires a claimant to prove that a person acting under color of state law committed an act that deprived the claimant of some right, privilege or immunity protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead that defendants acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes.

Stanko v. Wade Fisher, Individually and in His Official Capacity · filed 1995-02-22

To make out a cause of action under section 1983, a plaintiff must plead that (1) the defendants acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes."

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege an injury in fact through deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Clapp v. County of Mono · filed 1995-03-02

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must allege an injury in fact--a deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state authority and deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Reeves v. Thigpen · filed 1995-03-16

In order to establish a claim under Section 1983, Reeves must prove that the defendants acted under the cloak of state authority when they took the alleged actions against Reeves and that the actions deprived Reeves of a right or rights secured by the Constitution or by federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of federal rights under color of a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.

Phelan v. Bloomfield Board of Education, No. Cv93 525737 (Mar. 17, 1995) · filed 1995-03-17

To establish a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a deprivation of federal rights has occurred under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a federal right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Rust v. Clarke · filed 1995-04-26

In order to recover under § 1983, Plaintiffs must establish: (1) a deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that such deprivation was committed by a defendant acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person deprived him of a federal right while acting under color of state or territorial law.

Baker v. Cuomo · filed 1995-06-19

By the plain terms of Sec. 1983, two--and only two--allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under that statute. First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.

Section 1983 requires proof of state action and violation of a right defined by another source of federal law.

Hood v. City of Boston · filed 1995-06-28

First, to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, one must prove state action as well as violation of a right defined in some other source of federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the federal Constitution or laws.

Bradt v. State Bar of Texas · filed 1995-08-24

First, in order to bring a cause of action under the federal constitution or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the federal constitution or laws.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a federal right, and prison officials acting under color of state law satisfy the first requirement.

Hamilton v. Schriro · filed 1996-01-12

As with any section 1983 action, we must determine: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Because the prison officials were acting under color of state law, the first requirement of this two-part test is satisfied.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Showers v. City of Bartow · filed 1997-09-24

To state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a federal right, and, that the Defendant acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show conduct by a person acting under color of law that deprived someone of clearly established federal rights.

Britton v. Maloney · filed 1997-09-26

To assert a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color or law; and, (2) the conduct deprived a person of clearly established rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to establish citizenship as an additional element of the claim.

Colon v. Mack · filed 1997-11-17

The first issue is whether the erroneous instruction regarding Plaintiffs citizenship in my jury charge was harmless error. ... Thus, under any formulation of harmlessness, ... the addition of an extra prong to the test for a person to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 impermissible tainted the charge.

Section 1983 requires facts showing the deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law to state a claim.

Morrison v. Cook · filed 1998-01-15

To state a § 1983 claim, Morrison was required to allege facts showing the deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of rights protected by federal law.

Lindquist v. Woronka · filed 1998-01-28

To state a cause of action for violation of § 1983, the plaintiff must allege that a person, acting under color of state law, deprived him of rights protected under the federal constitution, or federal laws.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Hall v. Doering · filed 1998-02-25

To state a claim under Section 1983, plaintiffs must allege that a person has deprived them of a federal right, constitutional or statutory, and that the person acted under of color of state law in doing so.

Section 1983 requires proof that a right secured by the Constitution was deprived under color of state law.

Ryans v. Gresham · filed 1998-04-10

To prevail on each of these causes of action, they must prove (1) that they were deprived of a right or interest secured by the Constitution and (2) that the deprivation occurred under color' of state law.

Section 1983 requires proof that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix · filed 1998-08-28

To prove a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appellants must establish that 1) the city acted under color of state law; and 2) the city deprived appellants of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right by someone acting under color of state law.

Williams v. King · filed 1983-01-21

Thus, in order for plaintiffs to prosecute successfully this action against the defendants, plaintiffs must show (1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right, (2) by someone acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show action under color of state law that deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Charlie's Dream, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia · filed 1998-12-17

To establish a prima facie case under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the alleged action occurred under color of state law and that the action is a deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege conduct under color of state law that deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Hetzel v. Swartz · filed 1998-12-29

In order to state a viable § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law and that said conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or by laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Kinman v. Omaha Public School District · filed 1999-03-19

To hold McDougall liable under section 1983, Kinman must show that the conduct complained of was performed under color of state law and that the conduct deprived her of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or Federal law.

Section 1983 requires a claimant to show that the defendants acted under color of law and deprived the claimant of a constitutional right.

Malabed v. North Slope Borough · filed 1999-04-08

To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mal-abed must demonstrate that (1) the defendants acted under color of law, and (2) deprived him of a constitutional right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that defendants deprived it of federal rights under color of state law.

Philman's, Inc. v. City of West Carrollton · filed 1983-12-30

In any lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as in the case at bar, a plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants deprived it of rights secured by the federal constitution or laws of the United States, and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law.

Arledge v. Sherrill · filed 1999-08-18

Recovery under § 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege and prove two essential elements: (1) that the defendant’s conduct occurred under color of state law, and (2) that the defendant’s conduct deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or a law of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law.

McKnight v. Hayden · filed 1999-09-10

To maintain an action under Section 1983, plaintiffs must demonstrate conduct committed by a person acting under color of law that deprived them of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Gowan v. Bay County · filed 1999-10-27

To recover on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) the person depriving the plaintiff of that right acted "under color of state law."

Section 1983 requires allegations that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional right.

Watson v. Dominican College · filed 1999-11-18

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person who was .acting under color of state law and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. ... Watson has alleged no facts for this Court to conclude that he has stated a claim under § 1983. Accordingly, all claims under this section are dismissed.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Myers v. Medical Center of Delaware, Inc. · filed 2000-01-19

In order to state a claim under Section 1983, Myers “must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a federal right.

LaBarbara v. Angel · filed 2000-03-01

There are two elements of a § 1983 cause of action: (1) the conduct in question must be committed by a person acting under the color of state law; and (2) the conduct must deprive the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Baerwaldt · filed 1984-03-02

There are two essential elements to a section 1983 action: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; (2) whether this conduct deprives a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 does not require a concrete adverse action for every constitutional or statutory claim.

Warner v. St. Bernard Parish School Board · filed 2000-03-31

The required element of a concrete adverse action is not a universal element for all constitutional or statutory violations actionable under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right caused by someone acting under color of state law.

Perry v. McGinnis · filed 2000-04-13

In order to have stated a claim under § 1983, Perry must have alleged in his complaint that 1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that 2) the deprivation was caused by someone acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege conduct under color of state law that deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Hall v. City of Alexandria · filed 2000-06-02

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) such conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a federal rights violation caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Metcalf v. Shrf · filed 2000-06-19

To succeed in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must establish a violation of the laws or constitution of the United States and that this deprivation of rights was caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires allegations that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federal right and that the deprivation occurred under color of law.

MacH v. County of Douglas · filed 2000-06-23

Only two factual allegations are necessary to state a cause of action under § 1983: (1) a defendant’s deprivation of a plaintiff’s right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and (2) that the deprivation occurred under color of law.

Section 1983 requires a damages claimant to show deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Collins-Draine v. Knief · filed 2000-07-26

In order to support a claim of damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Margo and her family must show Officer Knief (1) deprived them of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution, and (2) was acting under the color of state law at the time of the deprivation.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a deprivation of a federal right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Long v. Board of Educ. of Jefferson County, Ky. · filed 2000-11-14

To succeed on their section 1983 claims, Plaintiffs must show the deprivation of a “right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, [that] the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law, and [that] the deprivation occurred without due process of law.”