42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 permits a plaintiff asserting constitutional claims to seek federal relief without first exhausting state judicial or administrative remedies.

Tobacco Road v. City of Novi · filed 1980-03-12

In the instant case, principles of federalism not only do not preclude federal intervention, they compel it. Requiring the federal courts totally to step aside when no state criminal prosecution is pending against the federal plaintiff would turn federalism on its head. When federal claims are premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) — as they are here — we have not required exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies, recognizing the paramount role Congress has assigned to the federal courts to protect constitutional rights. But exhaustion of state remedies is precisely what would be required if both federal injunctive and declaratory relief were unavailable in a case where no state prosecution had been commenced.

Section 1983 damages actions cannot be conditioned on exhaustion of state administrative or judicial remedies.

Ehlers v. City of Decatur, Georgia · filed 1980-03-19

Federal courts may not require exhaustion of state administrative or judicial remedies in a § 1983 action for damages for deprivation of a constitutional right.

Section 1983 plaintiffs may file a civil-rights action without first exhausting administrative remedies.

Willis v. Lascaris · filed 1980-06-11

However, Section 1983 plaintiffs are not required to exhaust administrative remedies before they file a civil rights action.

Section 1983 does not prohibit a federal court from requiring a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies.

Adams v. City of Chicago · filed 1980-06-16

However, a federal court is not prohibited from requiring a § 1983 plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies.

Section 1983 does not bar an action merely because the plaintiff has not completed additional state administrative proceedings when the plaintiff has already pursued the available administrative avenues.

Venuti v. Riordon · filed 1980-09-16

Whether state administrative remedies need be exhausted in all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions is a matter of some dispute. ... To demand more administrative action here would be unreasonable.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust available internal administrative remedies before bringing suit.

Williams v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Edward T. Kassinger, Etc. · filed 1980-10-06

Such administrative exhaustion is not a prerequisite to this § 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies when the remedies follow the deprivation and cannot provide the requested relief.

Swan v. Stoneman · filed 1980-10-17

Nonetheless, the nature of Ambrose's due process claim and the timing of the available state administrative remedies persuade us that Ambrose need not exhaust those remedies. The gravamen of Ambrose's § 1983 claim is that by failing to provide for full consultation and an evidentiary hearing prior to a termination of benefits under an extended evaluation plan or prior to any determination of ineligibility, the Department deprives him of due process. ... Thus, the administrative remedies that are available to Ambrose follow, rather than precede, the denial of benefits. It is the fact that the remedies are not available prior to the denial or termination that Ambrose attacks. ... Given this attack on the constitutional adequacy of the remedies that are available, we conclude that it would be pointless to require Ambrose to exhaust those remedies.

Section 1983 claims need not be brought first to state administrative agencies when the available administrative remedy cannot adjudicate the constitutional and federal statutory issues.

Curtis v. Taylor · filed 1980-12-19

Even if the Supreme Court or this court should decide that exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary before a Section 1983 claim may be asserted, recourse to state agencies has never been required unless the suggested state administrative remedy is adequate. ... The Section 120.57 hearing invoked to challenge the fifty cent co-payment rule could not resolve the plaintiffs constitutional and federal statutory challenges to that rule. ... Because the administrative hearing provided by Section 120.57 could not resolve the claims advanced by the plaintiffs, the failure to exhaust that avenue of relief will not bar the resort to federal court in this case. ... Inadequate administrative procedures need not be exhausted before the plaintiffs' claims are entertained in federal court.

Section 1983 does not automatically require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies, but a court may require exhaustion of adequate remedies in appropriate cases.

Patsy v. Florida International University · filed 1981-01-22

This section 1983 sex and race discrimination suit was dismissed on motion for failure to allege exhaustion of state administrative remedies. A panel of this Court reversed on the ground that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite of a section 1983 suit. Patsy v. Florida International University, 612 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1980). We took this case en banc for the purpose of considering whether to adhere to an automatic rule that no section 1983 plaintiff need pursue state administrative procedures before asserting federal court jurisdiction, regardless of the adequacy of relief that might be there available, or whether to adopt a more flexible rule that would require such exhaustion in appropriate cases. Deciding to take the latter course, we remand the case to the district court for it to consider the adequacy of administrative procedures available to this plaintiff in light of the rule here adopted.

Section 1983 requires plaintiffs to exhaust adequate and appropriate state administrative remedies before proceeding in federal court, subject to traditional exceptions.

Patsy v. Florida International University · filed 1981-01-22

Considering the policy factors which so heavily favor the imposition of an exhaustion requirement, we are compelled to conclude that adequate and appropriate state administrative remedies must be exhausted before a section 1983 action is permitted to proceed in federal court, absent any of the traditional exceptions to the general exhaustion rule.

Section 1983 generally does not require exhaustion of state administrative or judicial remedies, but a federal court may refer the plaintiffs to a state remedy under the equitable doctrine of comity.

Perkins v. City of West Helena · filed 1981-04-10

The Court’s conclusion is that despite the general rule against requiring exhaustion of state administrative or judicial remedies in suits under § 1983, we must refer the plaintiffs to the remedy provided in Ark.Stat.Ann. § 19-1005.

Section 1983 suits may require exhaustion of adequate state administrative remedies when the administrative forum can resolve individual factual disputes and provide complete relief.

Kaufman v. Board of Trustees, Community College District No. 508 · filed 1981-09-03

The hearing officer, chosen by the parties pursuant to Ill.Rev. Stat. ch. 122, § 103B-4, is no less suited than the Court to the task of determining the facts of a particular case and applying the rule against concurrent full-time employment to those facts. ... If the hearing officer determines, after a hearing on the record in which witnesses are placed under oath and subject to cross-examination, that the faculty member was wrongfully terminated, he may order the relief necessary to make the claimant whole including reinstatement and back pay. ... In such circumstances, exhaustion of state administrative remedies may be required even in the context of a suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before a plaintiff files suit asserting a § 504 claim.

Pushkin v. Regents of the University of Colorado · filed 1981-09-04

Under both § 504 and § 1983, then, plaintiff is not required to exhaust remedies as a prerequisite to filing this suit.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff seeking relief under it to exhaust state administrative or judicial remedies.

Linn County v. City of Hiawatha · filed 1981-10-21

We further note that the availability of state court review pursuant to section 414.15 does not mean that plaintiffs here were required to exhaust their state court remedies before going into federal court. When relief is sought under section 1983, as here, there is no requirement that a plaintiff exhaust state administrative or judicial remedies.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action.

Massachusetts Ass'n of Older Americans v. Spirito · filed 1981-11-20

Furthermore, in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, exhaustion has not been required.

Section 1983 permits a federal court to entertain a civil-rights suit without requiring exhaustion of state administrative remedies.

Shinholster v. Graham · filed 1981-11-30

Thus, while the failure to satisfy the administrative “exhaustion” requirement of Section 768.28(6) would preclude a civil tort claim under Section 394.459(13) in the state courts as well as a pendent state tort claim in the federal courts, it would not prevent a federal court from entertaining a civil rights suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits concurrent jurisdiction in state courts of general jurisdiction, and in this case does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies where the remedy’s adequacy is effectively identical to the merits.

Scott v. Unified School District No. 377 · filed 1981-12-17

Although this is a federal statute, state courts of general jurisdiction are vested with concurrent jurisdiction of § 1983 actions. ... So even if this court were to adopt the qualified rule as to exhaustion of state administrative remedies in § 1983 actions, exhaustion would not be required here: “the question of the adequacy of the administrative remedy . . . was for all practical purposes identical with the merits of [plaintiff’s] lawsuit.”

Section 1983 does not require a state teacher to exhaust administrative remedies before suing.

Phillips v. Puryear · filed 1975-09-30

Defendants first assert that the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is a bar to this court’s jurisdiction. The dispositive case with respect to this contention is McCray v. Burrell, 516 F.2d 357 (4th Cir. 1975) (en banc) in which the court squarely held‘ that the exhaustion of administrative remedies was not a prerequisite to the maintenance of a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by state prisoners. The present case is not distinguishable simply because plaintiff was a state teacher rather than a prisoner. The necessary elements for a cause of action under § 1983 have been alleged in this case and no more is required.

A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under § 1983 cannot avoid exhausting an adequate administrative remedy.

Flanagan v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1999-06-29

The plaintiff cannot avoid the exhaustion requirement in his claim for injunctive relief. Because, as stated previously, the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the request for injunctive relief. Therefore, the plaintiffs claim was properly dismissed.

Section 1983 has no administrative prerequisite to bringing suit.

McLaughlin v. New York, Governor's Office of Employee Relations · filed 1992-03-05

Unlike Title VII, neither § 1983 nor the United States Constitution has an administrative prerequisite to bringing suit thereunder.

Section 1983 claims are not foreclosed by an agency-created state administrative appeal requirement without evidence of congressional intent.

AGI-Bluff Manor, Inc. v. Reagen · filed 1989-04-18

Defendants’ principal argument is that Congress has foreclosed plaintiffs’ right to bring a cause of action under § 1983. The evidence of Congressional intent relied upon by defendants is HCFA’s adoption of a state administrative appeal requirement. This is not persuasive, however, because Congressional intent cannot be inferred from HCFA regulations.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies, but a plaintiff cannot establish denial of due process after rejecting the hearing that constituted the claimed federal right.

Richards v. Emanuel County Hospital Authority · filed 1984-11-26

The exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required prior to the bringing of a § 1983 action. ... That does not mean, however, that Dr. Richards can successfully bring a suit claiming a denial of due process after he rejected the hearings that were offered him.

Section 1983 actions may require exhaustion of administrative remedies under certain conditions.

Nasser v. City Of Homewood · filed 1982-03-22

This court recently held, sitting en banc, that exhaustion of administrative remedies may be required in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under certain conditions. Patsy v. Florida Internat'l Univ., 634 F.2d 900 (Former 5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. granted sub nom. Patsy v. Florida Bd. of Regents, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 88, 70 L.Ed.2d 81 (1981). The district court entered its order before Patsy was decided, and did not determine whether Homewood had established a Board of Adjustment pursuant to Alabama Code § 11-52-80 (1975), or if so, whether the plaintiffs' failure to request a variance under that statute, see generally McLarty v. Borough of Ramsey, 270 F.2d 232 (3d Cir. 1959), should be excused because it fell within an exception to the exhaustion rule. See, e.g., 634 F.2d at 903-04. The record before us does not permit a determination of either issue. Because of this omission, this action must be remanded to the district court for further consideration in light of Patsy.

Section 1983 actions challenging a state welfare policy or practice for conflict with federal law or the Constitution do not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies.

Jones v. Blinziner · filed 1982-03-29

The cases reveal, however, that exhaustion is not required in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C., Section 1983, when a state welfare policy or practice is at issue, particularly when the question for the courts is whether such policy or practice conflicts with federal law or the Constitution. ... Even applying defendants’ analysis of the exhaustion requirement in Section 1983 cases, however, reveals that defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust is without merit. ... In the case at bar, the plaintiffs are not challenging any particular budget decision of the Welfare Department but are rather challenging the Welfare Department policies and practices. ... Therefore, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is without foundation.

Section 1983 claims generally do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz · filed 1982-04-21

And where constitutional claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this circuit has concluded that there is no general exhaustion requirement.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies before commencing a federal civil-rights action.

Silver v. Woolf · filed 1982-05-06

Although there were state administrative proceedings pending at the time the federal complaint was filed, the fact that the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit does not preclude this court from taking jurisdiction.

Section 1983 does not generally require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing an action.

Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · filed 1982-06-21

Based on the legislative histories of both §1983 and § 1997e, we conclude that exhaustion of state administrative remedies should not be required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state judicial or administrative remedies before bringing an action.

Ledet v. Fischer · filed 1982-08-18

This argument is without merit, since actions found upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are free of any requirement of exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies.

Section 1983 civil rights actions do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Brown v. Dean · filed 1982-10-28

Neither is exhaustion required in civil rights actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as is this ease.

Section 1983 generally does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before a plaintiff may bring a federal action for a constitutional violation, including when the constitutional harm has already occurred.

Carder v. Michigan City School Corp. · filed 1982-12-14

The general rule in cases under § 1983 is that exhaustion of remedies is not required. ... In this case also the constitutional harm to plaintiff had already occurred. No procedure provided by the defendants can obviate that fact; therefore, plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust putative administrative remedies will not preclude their right to bring this action in this Court under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a civil-rights suit.

Jackson v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAF. FOR STATE OF LA. · filed 1983-04-18

And, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a civil rights suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a civil-rights suit.

Jackson v. Department of Public Safety · filed 1983-04-18

And, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a civil rights suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before an action is brought under the statute.

West v. Village of Morrisville · filed 1983-04-28

The doctrine of exhaustion does not apply here because the action was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before suing.

Robert Barnett, Cross-Appellant v. The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Mrs. Dorothy L. Kelly, Cross-Appellees · filed 1983-06-27

... AHA claims that Barnett is precluded from bringing a § 1983 action because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Supreme Court, however, has rejected any exhaustion requirement in this context.

A Section 1983 wrongful-discharge plaintiff proceeding in North Carolina state court must exhaust an exclusive state administrative remedy before invoking the court's jurisdiction.

Snuggs v. STANLY CTY. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH · filed 1983-07-05

The trial court allowed the motions, and our Supreme Court affirmed because the complaint showed on its face that the plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative remedies. We must reach the same result here on plaintiffs' Section 1983 actions for wrongful discharge.

Section 1983 actions are not subject to an administrative-exhaustion requirement.

Walker v. Adams · filed 1983-07-27

Plaintiff invoked the Court’s jurisdiction under Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the recent case of ... excludes Section 1983 actions from the exhaustion rule.

Exhaustion of available state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to filing a Section 1983 action in federal court.

Brantley v. M.F. Surles, Superintendent of Education, Montgomery County · filed 1983-11-10

Although the district court was correct in stating that Mrs. Brantley could not properly commence a state court action under § 37-9-59 until she had exhausted her state administrative remedies, the Supreme Court has held that the exhaustion of available state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to commencement of an action in federal court under § 1983.

A plaintiff need not exhaust state administrative remedies before pursuing a § 1983 claim.

Cornelius v. La Croix · filed 1983-11-29

The defendants’ argument relating to exhaustion of state remedies cannot help them with respect to the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim, since there is no requirement under that section that such remedies be exhausted.

A plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 action.

Victor Underwood and Carmen Edwards, for Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Nell Hunter · filed 1984-04-10

Exhaustion of administrative remedies, however, is not a prerequisite to the bringing of this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A plaintiff need not exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a Section 1983 action in state district court.

Talbot v. School District No. 1, Denver · filed 1984-12-20

Talbot need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action based on § 1983, the district court improperly dismissed that portion of the action.

Exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to judicial relief under Section 1983, including when a state court exercises concurrent jurisdiction.

Laurel Park, Inc. v. Pac · filed 1984-12-25

In the exercise of our concurrent jurisdiction under § 1983, this court has followed the federal determination that exhaustion of such an administrative remedy is not a prerequisite to judicial relief. ... The trial court did not err, therefore, in refusing to grant the motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 plaintiffs need not exhaust state administrative or judicial remedies before maintaining the federal action.

McClelland v. Massinga · filed 1984-12-27

This suggestion is tantamount to a requirement that state remedies be exhausted before a § 1983 action may be maintained. That view has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust available state administrative remedies before filing suit.

Webb v. County Board of Education · filed 1985-04-17

nothing in § 1983 requires that a plaintiff exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 suit.

A § 1983 plaintiff need not exhaust state judicial or administrative remedies before seeking federal protection of constitutional rights.

Postscript Enterprises, Inc. v. Westfall · filed 1985-08-27

we have not required exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies, recognizing the paramount role Congress has assigned to the federal courts to protect constitutional rights.

A § 1983 plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.

Brown v. Pornography Com'n of Lower Southampton · filed 1985-10-21

plaintiffs need not exhaust administrative remedies prior to instituting a § 1983 action.

A plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies or file a matching EEOC charge before pursuing an independent § 1983 employment-discrimination claim.

Lowe v. City of Monrovia · filed 1986-01-21

Because a plaintiff does not have to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a section 1983 action, Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 2560, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982), Lowe's failure to file an EEOC sex discrimination complaint does not bar her section 1983 sex discrimination claim.

A state court may require a Section 1983 plaintiff to exhaust adequate and readily available state administrative remedies before suing in state court.

Kramer v. Horton · filed 1986-03-13

When state administrative remedies are adequate and readily available, a plaintiff bringing a sec. 1983 claim in state court should exhaust his administrative remedies prior to commencing suit.

A Section 1983 plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies before obtaining judicial review.

Levesque v. Commissioner, Department of Human Services · filed 1986-04-24

Moreover, since this matter arises under a complaint based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff is not required to exhaust her administrative remedies.

A § 1983 plaintiff need not exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing suit.

Alexander v. City of Menlo Park · filed 1986-06-24

Further, exhaustion of remedies is not required under section 1983.

Section 1983 plaintiffs in Washington state court must exhaust state administrative remedies before filing suit.

McConnell v. City of Seattle · filed 1986-07-14

We believe the better view to be that exhaustion of remedies is a prerequisite before § 1983 actions can be filed in state courts.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a federal civil-rights action.

Melendez v. Roque · filed 1986-08-12

Exhaustion of state remedies is not a prerequisite to bring a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. sect. 1983 in federal court.

A state notice-of-claim provision that requires exhaustion of administrative remedies is inapplicable to § 1983 suits.

Majette v. O'COnnOr · filed 1987-03-06

Exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a section 1983 action. ... We likewise conclude that section 768.28(6) constitutes an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and is thus inapplicable to section 1983 suits.

The rule that § 1983 plaintiffs need not exhaust administrative remedies does not prevent a federal court from applying Younger abstention to qualifying pending state administrative proceedings.

Torres v. Hernandez Colon · filed 1987-03-06

federal judicial doctrine holds that litigants need not exhaust their administrative remedies prior to bringing a section 1983 suit in federal court. ... the non-exhaustion principle applied in section 1983 actions does not preclude the Court from considering the ... Younger ... abstention doctrine in the present case.

Invoking § 1983 in Missouri court does not permit bypassing an adequate state administrative-review procedure for a property-right damages claim.

James v. City of Jennings · filed 1987-08-11

Our administrative procedure act provides such a remedy. Invocation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not change the lack of jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim for damages for denial of a property right, i.e. the occupancy permit, in an administrative proceeding.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies, though a claim must still be ripe and not moot.

Melvin A. McCabe and Mark H. Madsen v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Penitentiary Al Murphy, Director, Idaho State · filed 1987-09-11

While there is no requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ... the claim must be ripe, and not moot, to be reviewed properly.

A plaintiff bringing a due-process claim under § 1983 need not exhaust administrative remedies before suing.

Ass'n for Retarded Citizens of Alabama, Inc. v. Teague · filed 1987-10-19

Since this claim is brought under § 1983, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required.

A § 1983 plaintiff need not exhaust an administrative appeal that would be futile and could not provide adequate relief while the appeal remained pending.

Baja Contractors, Inc. v. The City of Chicago · filed 1987-10-20

The appeal to the USDOT therefore provides inadequate relief because Baja would be denied MBE status and lose the concomitant advantage in competing for contracts for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, we conclude that exhaustion is not required in this situation.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies, but failing to seek available state relief may leave the alleged injury self-inflicted and the federal claim unripe.

Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. Hanson · filed 1987-12-17

The court recognizes that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... In this case, however, Bayside has permitted whatever present injury may have been brought about by any constitutional violations asserted in counts III and V, by ... failing ... to seek readily available state administrative or judicial relief.

A plaintiff need not exhaust an available state administrative appeal before filing a § 1983 action.

Custodio v. de Jesus Gotay · filed 1988-01-25

We reject defendant’s contention, however, that plaintiffs had to exhaust this appeal mechanism before filing their section 1983 suit.

The remedial nature of Section 1983 does not permit a plaintiff to bypass adequate Indiana administrative remedies except in exceptional circumstances.

New Trend Beauty School, Inc. v. Indiana State Board of Beauty Culturist Examiners · filed 1988-02-03

The remedial nature of a § 1983 claim cannot obviate the remedial procedures provided by the Indiana legislature in pertinent statutes such as the Administrative Adjudication Act (I.C. 4-22-1-1 et seq. (Burns Code Ed.Repl.1982 (repealed effective July 1, 1987)). May v. Blinzinger (1984) 1st Dist. Ind.App., 460 N.E.2d 546. Avoidance of this exhaustion requirement may occur only in exceptional circumstances.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative review after a concrete injury, but a due process claimant must take available administrative steps before a nonfinal action causes injury.

Lavelle v. Quinones · filed 1988-02-19

To require Lavelle to invoke the powers of the Commissioner is not inconsistent with those cases holding that there is no requirement that a plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 action. ... But where the administrative action is not “final” in the sense that it “inflicts an actual, concrete injury,” ... a plaintiff must, before injury occurs, take such administrative steps as the law affords.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative or judicial remedies before filing suit.

Waltz v. Herlihy · filed 1988-03-29

It has for some time been abundantly clear that exhaustion of state administrative or judicial remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Pursuing CETA administrative remedies does not toll the limitations period for a constitutional § 1983 claim because those remedies need not be exhausted before suit.

Black v. Broward Employment & Training Administration · filed 1988-06-10

The issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs pursuit of administrative remedies operated to toll the running of the statute of limitations in her subsequent 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. ... Because the congressional intent not to require exhaustion in this case was at all times clear, there was no tolling of the statute of limitations.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before suit.

Van Meter v. Township of Maplewood · filed 1988-10-13

Exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required before initiating an action under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before suit.

Hall v. City of Dothan · filed 1988-10-19

The Employees correctly state the rule of law that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982).

Section 1983 plaintiffs need not exhaust state administrative remedies before filing suit.

Chinea v. Benitez · filed 1988-12-19

Although the University Board may ultimately reverse that decision and reinstate plaintiff to her teaching post, this court heard this case because plaintiffs filing actions under section 1983 are not required to exhaust state administrative remedies.

Section 1983 plaintiffs need not satisfy Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirements before bringing a public employment discrimination claim.

Brown v. Hartshorne Public School District 1 · filed 1988-12-20

The most important distinction with respect to the district court’s holding is that a section 1983 plaintiff need not comply with the exhaustion requirements of Title VII.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before an action is brought.

Locklear v. James E. Johnson, William P. Rogers · filed 1989-01-04

Although exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing an action under Sec. 1983, Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (1982), a district court may continue the action for no more than ninety days to require an inmate to exhaust administrative remedies that are certified to meet certain standards.

A plaintiff need not exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 suit.

Hammond v. Baldwin · filed 1989-01-18

The trial judge was correct that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required in § 1983 suits.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before suit.

Robinson v. Block · filed 1989-02-28

Furthermore, despite the district court's suggestion to the contrary, it is clear that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Section 1983 plaintiffs need not exhaust state administrative remedies before seeking relief in federal court.

Bowman v. Township of Pennsauken · filed 1989-03-28

Accordingly, plaintiffs need not resort to PERC or any state administrative proceeding as a prerequisite to seeking relief in this court under § 1983.

Section 1983 suits do not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies.

Hammond v. Baldwin · filed 1989-04-03

The trial judge was correct that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required in Sec. 1983 suits.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative or judicial remedies before bringing a claim.

Miller v. Town of Hull, Massachusetts, Etc. · filed 1989-06-21

Moreover, it is firmly settled that exhaustion or resort to state remedies is not a prerequisite to a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing suit.

Cook v. Barry · filed 1989-07-27

However, exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a takings or substantive due process claim.

Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City Of Alabaster · filed 1989-09-01

Under Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982), there is no requirement that a plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a Sec. 1983 action. Thus, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required either for a takings claim or for a substantive due process claim.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies before a plaintiff seeks relief in federal court.

Hughes v. Lipscher · filed 1989-09-08

In pursuing a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs are not precluded, under the principle of "exhaustion of administrative remedies”, from obtaining relief from this Court. The Supreme Court has unambiguously held that exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a federal law suit initiated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 plaintiffs challenging a state tax system in state tax court must exhaust their state administrative remedies.

Nutbrown v. Munn · filed 1989-10-04

Accordingly, this court finds that ... plaintiffs are not excused from exhausting their administrative remedies when asserting a section 1983 claim challenging a state tax system.

Section 1983 claims in state court do not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies.

Zeigler v. Kirschner · filed 1989-10-05

The holding in Felder clearly demonstrates that a state court may not condition a plaintiff’s § 1983 rights upon the exhaustion of state administrative remedies. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims in the instant case were not subject to dismissal because of the named plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their state administrative remedies.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies, but a claim based on agency action that is not yet final may be unripe until those remedies are exhausted.

Shaalan v. Family · filed 1989-10-27

Although exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to filing an action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (1982), where agency action constituting the basis for the complaint is not yet final, such exhaustion may be necessary before an action is ripe for review.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of available administrative remedies before a First Amendment suit, but failure to pursue them may be considered as evidence.

Wright v. Phipps · filed 1990-02-05

In First Amendment cases, it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. However, a failure to pursue administrative remedies clearly available to the plaintiffs is an item of evidence to be considered along with other evidence in the ease.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies, and a plaintiff generally need not exhaust state judicial remedies before suing in federal court.

Alleghany Corp. v. Haase · filed 1990-02-21

But there is no general requirement of exhausting state judicial or administrative remedies before bringing a federal suit, although there are important exceptions to this generality, such as the requirement of exhaustion in the habeas corpus statute. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The Supreme Court has held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the principal vehicle for challenging state action on federal grounds and the one used by Alleghany in these suits, contains no requirement of exhausting administrative remedies.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit in court.

Binkley v. City of Tacoma · filed 1990-03-22

Although he is correct in that exhaustion of remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a section 1983 action in court, ... this evidence was clearly relevant to the separate issue of constructive discharge.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a federal suit challenging state action.

Alleghany Corporation v. Haase · filed 1990-04-05

But there is no general requirement of exhausting state judicial or administrative remedies before bringing a federal suit, although there are important exceptions to this generality, such as the requirement of exhaustion in the habeas corpus statute. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(b). The Supreme Court has held that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, the principal vehicle for challenging state action on federal grounds and the one used by Alleghany in these suits, contains no requirement of exhausting administrative remedies.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before an action is brought.

Howlett ex rel. Howlett v. Rose · filed 1990-08-24

Exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies; dismissing a related state law claim for lack of statutory notice does not impose that requirement on the section 1983 claim.

Diversified Numismatics, Inc. v. City of Orlando, Fla. · filed 1990-09-06

In the case at hand, however, this court retained jurisdiction over the section 1983 claim against defendants. Therefore, dismissal of the state law claim without prejudice did not require plaintiffs to exhaust their state administrative remedies before bringing their section 1983 suit.

Section 1983 does not bar a constitutional claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when no procedure was available to appeal the challenged decision.

Mays-Ott Co., Inc. v. Town of Nags Head · filed 1990-11-01

Since defendant has not pointed out any administrative procedure by which plaintiff could have appealed the Board of Commissioners’ refusal to extend the site plan approval, plaintiff is not barred from bringing suit to vindicate its constitutional rights for any failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Section 1983 claims brought in state court do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Allen v. Bergman · filed 1990-11-26

In so ruling, the trial court erred. In Felder v. Casey, 487 U. S. 131 (108 SC 2302, 101 LE2d 123) (1988), the Supreme Court held that states may no longer require litigants to exhaust administrative remedies before asserting claims pursuant to 42 USC § 1981 and 42 USC § 1983 in state courts. ... Thus, we must reverse the trial court’s order dismissing Allen’s claims pursuant to 42 USC § 1981 and 42 USC § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state or local administrative remedies before suit.

Cawley v. City of Port Jervis · filed 1990-12-12

Exhaustion of state or local administrative remedies is not required for cases arising under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state judicial or administrative remedies before bringing a claim.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Gailey · filed 1990-12-28

It is not necessary for plaintiff to exhaust state judicial or administrative remedies prior to proceeding under a Section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a federal suit.

Cone Corp. v. Florida Department of Transportation · filed 1991-01-08

Therefore, under Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 V.S. 496, 516, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 2568, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982), the contractor would not be required to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing its federal suit.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before an action is brought.

Mitchison v. Houston Independent School District · filed 1991-01-10

Exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies before suit.

Mosher v. City of Lakewood · filed 1991-01-17

Like actions under § 1981, there is no requirement for the exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies before commencing an action under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims brought in state court are not subject to a state requirement to appeal an administrative decision before seeking judicial resolution.

Diedrich v. City of Ketchikan · filed 1991-01-25

Thus, we conclude that Diedrich’s argument, that he need not comply with state procedural law in seeking a judicial resolution of his section 1983 claims, is correct.

Section 1983 does not require a claimant to pursue a state judicial appeal of an administrative decision before filing suit.

Port Clinton Associates v. Board of Selectmen · filed 1991-02-26

The statutory appeals process under § 8-8 is, thus, precisely the type of procedure that a claimant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 need not pursue as a prerequisite to filing his suit.

Section 1983 actions in the local courts of the District of Columbia do not require exhaustion of District administrative remedies unless Congress imposes that requirement.

Miller v. District of Columbia · filed 1991-02-28

We hold, likewise, that unless Congress acts to impose exhaustion requirements, the no-exhaustion rule at work both in federal and state court § 1983 litigation applies in the local courts of the District as well.

A state may require taxpayers challenging its tax system under § 1983 to exhaust available administrative remedies before suing in state court.

Nutbrown v. Munn · filed 1991-05-09

We hold that the Oregon Tax Court correctly interpreted ORS 305.275(4) to require Taxpayers in this case to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to their claim for damages and other relief under 42 USC § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing an action.

Major v. Nederland Independent School District · filed 1991-05-20

The Plaintiffs are simply not required by law to exhaust their state administrative remedies prior to bringing a § 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust available state administrative remedies before bringing an action.

Gillies v. Utah County · filed 1991-06-17

However, even if the asserted state remedial process were available to address Plaintiffs’ claims, they are not required to pursue such a remedy before bringing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

Section 1983 permits states to require exhaustion of fair, adequate, and complete administrative remedies before a taxpayer brings a claim challenging the administration of state tax statutes.

Hogan v. Musolf · filed 1991-06-26

We agree with the Department that, when a state's administration of its tax statutes is challenged, federal law permits the states to require plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies before pursuing a sec. 1983 claim if those remedies are fair, adequate, and complete.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing suit.

Sudarsky v. City of New York · filed 1991-11-22

Thus, while plaintiffs were not required to exhaust their state administrative remedies by appealing the Buildings Department’s decision that the TA District regulations applied to their proposed development, ... they were required to obtain a conclusive determination as to what type of development would be allowed on their property, for example by applying for a variance ... from the lower FAR put into effect by the down-zoning.

Section 1983 does not exempt a state-tax refund claim from Kansas’s adequate administrative tax-remedy requirements.

Dean v. State · filed 1992-02-28

The considerations that have prompted federal court restraint in matters of state taxation also should prompt restraint where a federal cause of action is brought in state court challenging matters of state taxation. At minimum, the federal cause of action should not create the necessity for the state court to forego restraint in such matters. ... K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 79-2005 and K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 74-2426 provide the plaintiffs with a clear and certain remedy for complete and adequate relief and, therefore, must be complied with before resorting to the courts.

A taxpayer seeking monetary relief in a state-court § 1983 challenge to state taxation must exhaust clear and adequate state administrative remedies.

Zarda v. State · filed 1992-02-28

His concern leads to the conclusion that “[w]here administrative remedies are a precondition to suit for monetary relief in state court, absent some substantial consideration compelling a contrary result in a particular case, those remedies should be deemed a precondition to suit in federal court as well.” 454 U.S. at 137. We conclude that those same concerns logically apply when a federal cause of action (§ 1983) is brought in state court to challenge state taxation.

Section 1983 plaintiffs may bring claims in state court without first exhausting state administrative remedies unless Congress has authorized an exception.

Casteel v. Vaade · filed 1992-03-17

A state court may not require a complainant to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a sec. 1983 action in state court unless the complainant falls under a clear exception to the "no exhaustion" rule adopted by the United States Congress.

Section 1983 generally allows plaintiffs with federal or constitutional claims to sue in federal court without first pursuing state judicial or administrative remedies.

Kraebel v. New York City Department Of Housing Preservation And Development · filed 1992-03-19

It is well-established that § 1983 generally allows plaintiffs with federal or constitutional claims the right to sue in federal court without first resorting to state judicial remedies, Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183, 81 S.Ct. 473, 482, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), or state administrative remedies, Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 500-01, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 2559-60, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982).

Section 1983 permits a state to require taxpayers to exhaust available state administrative remedies before bringing a state-court claim challenging the state tax system.

Bancroft Information Group, Inc. v. Comptroller of Treasury · filed 1992-04-06

Thus, under this reasoning, the state may, in a § 1983 action, require a complaining taxpayer first to exhaust available state administrative remedies.

A plaintiff may bring a Section 1983 action in Wisconsin state court without first exhausting administrative remedies.

Casteel v. Mc Caughtry · filed 1992-04-30

The reason given by the tried court to dismiss the sec. 1983 claim, Casteel's failure to allege he had exhausted his administrative remedies, is insufficient.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit.

Reese v. City of Columbus · filed 1992-05-07

However, it is well settled that no administrative remedies need be exhausted before bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims seeking only monetary damages need not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Miles v. Konvalenka · filed 1992-05-22

Although plaintiff admits he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, this is no longer a basis for dismissal when the complaint only seeks monetary damages.

Section 1983 plaintiffs challenging allegedly improper property tax reassessments in state court must exhaust available state administrative remedies.

Boughton Trucking & Materials, Inc. v. County of Will · filed 1992-05-29

As this court has previously held, however, the general rule of nonexhaustion set forth in Monroe v. Pape (1961), 365 U.S. 167, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492, 81 S. Ct. 473, and McNeese v. Board of Education for School District 187 (1963), 373 U.S. 668, 10 L. Ed. 2d 622, 83 S. Ct. 1433, and reaffirmed in Patsy does not apply where the basis of the section 1983 claim is an allegedly unfair and improper reassessment of property.

Section 1983 actions may be brought without first pursuing state administrative remedies.

Connecticut Hospital Ass'n v. O'Neill · filed 1992-06-08

In Count IV of the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court will only note that the Supreme Court has held that this right of action may be brought without resort to state administrative remedies.

Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to bring suit in federal court without first pursuing optional administrative relief.

Rock Creek Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership v. State Water Resources Control Board · filed 1992-08-05

An approach to FERC was not a condition precedent to its entry to federal court, as in New York Gaslight Club.

Section 1983 claims do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit.

Tucker v. Cordani, Tax Collector, No. 059375 (Aug. 25, 1992) · filed 1992-08-25

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required before bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.

Smith v. School City of Hobart · filed 1993-01-25

Smith need not exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing this action.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action.

Neufeld v. City of Baltimore · filed 1993-01-29

Of course, in order to maintain his § 1983 action, Neufeld does not have to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Section 1983 plaintiffs need not exhaust state administrative remedies before suing, even if they began but did not complete the administrative process.

Independence Public Media of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Television Network Commission · filed 1993-02-10

Thus, it is plain from Patsy that a plaintiff such as the plaintiff in this case need not exhaust in any way its administrative remedies prior to proceeding with a section 1983 action and that the courts should not involve themselves in the creation of exceptions to this rule.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies or seek judicial review of an agency decision before filing suit.

Esslinger v. Baltimore City · filed 1993-04-05

Accordingly, even if exhaustion of administrative remedies ordinarily requires a party to seek judicial review of the decision of an administrative agency, Esslinger was not required to seek judicial review of the 1989 Zoning Board decision prior to filing the present civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before filing suit.

DEPT. OF HEALTH v. State Hosp. · filed 1993-07-16

The superior court was correct in concluding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to filing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before filing suit.

Department of Health & Social Services v. Alaska State Hospital & Nursing Home Ass'n · filed 1993-07-16

The superior court was correct in concluding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to filing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits an equal protection claimant to proceed directly in federal court without first seeking administrative rehearing or state court review of a public utilities commission decision.

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. California Public Utilities Commission · filed 1993-12-02

In the alternative, UPS could have foregone the CPUC rehearing and state court review process altogether and come directly to federal court on its equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A plaintiff bringing a Section 1983 action in federal district court need not exhaust state administrative remedies.

Bukaka, Inc. v. County of Benton · filed 1993-12-06

A plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit need not exhaust state administrative remedies prior to commencing an action in federal district court. ... For this reason plaintiff need not appeal the Benton County planning administrator’s decision before bringing this action.

Section 1983 permits classified civil service employees to pursue damages claims in state district courts without exhausting their civil service appeals.

Eberhardt v. Levasseur · filed 1993-12-16

The State Civil Service Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear § 1983 claims. State District Courts have the power and authority to decide § 1983 claims. Therefore, although this litigation arises out of an employment dispute, it cannot be dismissed on an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... Therefore, Eberhardt is not deprived of his right to seek § 1983 relief because of his failure to exhaust his Civil Service appeals.

Section 1983 claims do not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before suit.

Wright v. Ector County Independent School District · filed 1994-01-12

With reference to Appellant’s civil rights claims, the United States Supreme Court has held that exhaustion of state remedies is not necessary with regard to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as alleged in the present action. ... Thus, these two exceptions negate any argument that the trial court could have based the summary judgment on the exhaustion of remedies theory advanced by Appellees.

Section 1983 generally does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before suit, except in statutorily prescribed instances.

McConnell v. Selsky · filed 1994-02-01

However the Supreme Court has held that, except in certain statutorily prescribed instances not applicable here, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a section 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not always require exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit, particularly when First Amendment rights are involved.

Trinity Resources, Inc. v. Twp. of Delanco · filed 1994-02-10

It is correct that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not always required pri- or to commencing a § 1983 action, particularly where First Amendment rights are involved.

Section 1983 substantive due process claims do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Thomas v. City of West Haven, No. Cv-89-0284555-S (Mar. 9, 1994) · filed 1994-03-09

It is well established, however, that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply to 1983 substantive due process claims.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing suit.

Tookes v. City of Riviera Beach · filed 1994-03-16

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a section 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing suit.

Lovell Ex Rel. Lovell v. Poway Unified School District · filed 1994-03-18

Neither Education Code § 48950 nor 42 U.S.C. § 1983 require administrative procedure as a condition precedent to an action or the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court in these regards.

Section 1983 does not require plaintiffs to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing suit.

Waltier v. New York Police Department · filed 1994-06-28

As defendant concedes, under section 1983, plaintiffs are not required to exhaust administrative remedies.

Section 1983 civil rights actions do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit.

T&D Video, Inc. v. Revere · filed 1994-12-08

Furthermore, it is well settled that there is no requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies where, as here, the action is for a violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies for a facial constitutional challenge to a land-use ordinance.

Del Oro Hills v. City of Oceanside · filed 1995-01-23

However, to the extent this is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Prop. A, through the medium of the cause of action for violation of federal civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), there is no bar of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before filing suit.

Ramirez v. Lyford Consolidated Independent School District · filed 1995-05-25

Among the six, one exception prescribes that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require a civil rights litigant to exhaust administrative remedies before suing.

Bivens Ex Rel. Green v. Albuquerque Public Schools · filed 1995-08-25

I am mindful that under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil rights litigant may not be required to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.

Ifill v. District of Columbia · filed 1995-09-07

As we discussed supra, it is well-settled that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required prior to filing a § 1983 legal action.

Section 1983 suits generally do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing.

Santa Fe Springs Realty Corp. v. City of Westminster · filed 1995-10-20

As a general rule, suits under § 1983 of the United States Code are exempted from the exhaustion requirement because the remedy afforded by the Civil Rights Act is supplementary to the state court remedy.

Section 1983 damages claims do not require exhaustion of available state administrative remedies.

Mefferd v. City of Middletown, No. 06 97 67 (Nov. 3, 1995) · filed 1995-11-03

In the case at hand, the plaintiffs are seeking damages; thus, the plaintiffs are not required to exhaust their administrative remedies before pursuing counts two, three, seven, nine and ten in this court.

Section 1983 generally does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before filing in federal district court.

Plough v. West Des Moines Community School District · filed 1995-11-08

Generally, a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing a section 1983 claim in federal district court.

Section 1983 does not require filing a charge with the EEOC before bringing due process or equal protection claims.

Regenbogen v. Mustille · filed 1995-12-05

Section 1983 does not require filing with the EEOC.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust available state administrative remedies before filing in federal court.

Pruett v. Dumas · filed 1996-01-31

The fact that Pruett failed to take advantage of the hearing that the board offered her does not in and of itself foreclose her federal claim. The Fifth Circuit has held that “the exhaustion of available state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to commencement of an action in federal court under § 1983."

Section 1983 permits judicial determination of a substantive due process claim without exhaustion of administrative remedies.

City of Iowa City v. Hagen Electronics, Inc. · filed 1996-03-20

Exhaustion of administrative remedies, however, is not a prerequisite to judicial determination of a § 1983 substantive due process claim.

Section 1983 permits a plaintiff to sue without first exhausting administrative remedies.

Carrillo v. Anthony Independent School District · filed 1996-04-11

Carrillo asserted both a federal and state constitutional due process claim and a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, exhaustion of administrative remedies was not a prerequisite to seeking relief in a court of law.

A section 1983 claim over a municipal permit revocation is ripe once an official authorized to revoke the permit makes a final decision; an appeal to a zoning board with only review authority is unnecessary.

Town of Orangetown v. Magee · filed 1996-04-30

The Zoning Board was not authorized to revoke a permit or even participate in the Inspector’s decision to revoke. Its power was restricted to the review of the Inspector’s final decision. Thus, a determination by the Board was not necessary and defendants’ counterclaim for section 1983 relief is ripe for judicial review.

Section 1983 generally does not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies unless another statute directs otherwise.

UPPER VALLEY ASS'N FOR HANDICAPPED v. Mills · filed 1996-05-01

Furthermore, as a general rule, plaintiffs are not required to exhaust state administrative remedies prior to bringing a § 1983 action, unless otherwise directed by statute.

Section 1983 claims do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before a plaintiff proceeds in court.

Kelly v. Borough of Sayreville · filed 1996-05-10

It is well settled that there is no exhaustion requirement with respect to claims arising under section 1983. Accordingly, a party who wishes to assert federally protected rights, need not proceed in the administrative forum.

A plaintiff need not exhaust unreviewed administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 claim.

Merritt v. Brantley · filed 1996-05-28

Exhaustion of unreviewed administrative remedies is not required before bringing a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 claims in state court do not require exhaustion of available administrative remedies.

Md. Reclamation v. Harford Cty. · filed 1996-06-07

With regard to Maryland Reclamation's due process arguments insofar as they are based upon the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it is appropriate for a court to consider those arguments regardless of the failure by Maryland Reclamation to invoke and exhaust administrative remedies.

Section 1983 plaintiffs may bring their claims in state court without first exhausting available administrative remedies.

Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County · filed 1996-06-07

With regard to Maryland Reclamation’s due process arguments insofar as they are based upon the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it is appropriate for a court to consider those arguments regardless of the failure by Maryland Reclamation to invoke and exhaust administrative remedies. The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in a state court without having exhausted available administrative remedies.

Section 1983 does not require a claimant to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit.

Bateman v. City of West Bountiful · filed 1996-07-10

Thus, while we agree that Bateman need not exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing a § 1983 action, this fact does not excuse him from first obtaining a final decision from the board of adjustment regarding how it will apply the zoning ordinance to his property.

A plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 action in an Indiana state court.

Myers v. Moyars · filed 1996-07-18

Today, we are squarely faced with that issue and hold that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a § 1983 action in an Indiana state court.

Section 1983 itself imposes no general exhaustion requirement on litigants.

Hansen v. Williams · filed 1996-12-16

Although section 1983 does not impose any general exhaustion requirement upon litigants, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, district courts have discretion to require an inmate to exhaust prison administrative remedies prior to having his case heard in federal court.

Section 1983 does not impose a general requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before suit.

Hansen v. Moore · filed 1996-12-16

Although section 1983 does not impose any general exhaustion requirement upon litigants, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, district courts have discretion to require an inmate to exhaust prison administrative remedies prior to having his case heard in federal court.