42 U.S.C. § 1983

A failure to follow state warrant execution procedures does not, by itself, state a § 1983 claim.

Gooden v. Lovorn · filed 2002-04-05

Gooden was arrested pursuant to a warrant, and his allegation that the UAPB defendants failed to execute the warrant according to Arkansas state procedures did not amount to a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights; a violation of state law alone does not state a claim.

Vasquez v. Johnson · filed 2002-05-23

Finally, Mr. Vasquez’s allegations regarding the violation of a New Mexico state statute are insufficient to allege a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not support a claim based solely on a violation of state arrest law; the plaintiff must be deprived of a federal right.

Knight v. Jacobson, Officer, Badge 3359, Individual · filed 2002-09-18

While the violation of state law may (or may not) give rise to a state tort claim, it is not enough by itself to support a claim under section 1983.

Section 1983 provides no remedy for an arrest that violates state law but does not violate a federal right.

Soltesz v. City of Sandusky · filed 2002-10-15

Because the United States Supreme Court “has never held that a warrant for lesser offenses occurring out of the presence of an officer is constitutionally required,” Soltesz’s assertion is not grounded in federal constitutional jurisprudence and, therefore, does not raise a claim cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of prison regulations or state law alone; the alleged conduct must violate a federal right.

Rivera v. Wohlrab · filed 2002-11-06

Thus, a § 1983 claim • brought in federal court is not the appropriate forum to urge violations of prison regulations or state law; rather, in order to prevail on a § 1983 claim, the allegations asserted must constitute violations of constitutional due process standards.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law alone.

Kerkhove v. SD Dept. Corrections · filed 2002-11-25

We agree with the district court that the claimed violations of South Dakota law are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law alone.

Waff v. South Dakota Department of Corrections · filed 2002-11-25

We agree with the district court that the claimed violations of South Dakota law are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a federal cause of action for a violation of state law alone.

Jocham v. Tuscola County · filed 2003-01-07

Violations of state law do not, by themselves, give rise to a federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim based solely on a violation of state law.

Enquirer v. Cincinnati Board of Education · filed 2003-02-11

The Court, as noted above, agrees that a state law claim cannot serve as the basis for a Section 1983 Complaint.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of state law.

Nickens v. Anderson · filed 2003-02-13

As for Nickens’s negligence claim, § 1983 does not provide redress for a violation of state law.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal law, not state law alone.

Myers v. Shaver · filed 2003-02-21

Section 1983 redresses violations of federal not state law.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for violations of state law alone.

Windle, Chaunce v. City Marion IN · filed 2003-03-03

State law violations do not form the basis for imposing § 1983 liability.

Section 1983 provides no remedy for a violation of a State statute unless that violation also infringes a Federal right.

Baker v. Gray · filed 2003-03-24

This is because § 1983 protects against the violation of Federal statutes and constitutional provisions. It does not protect against the violation of State statutes such as c. 90B, unless the statutory violation is also a violation of a Federal right.

Section 1983 does not provide a federal cause of action for a violation of state law alone.

Longyear v. Utah Board of Pardons & Parole · filed 2003-06-05

While it is true that the Utah Supreme Court has imposed state-level due process requirements on the Board at the original parole hearing stage, see, e.g., Labrum v. Utah State Bd. of Pardons, 870 P.2d 902, 911 (Utah 1993), this does not give rise to a federal due process claim. “[A] violation of state law alone does not give rise to a federal cause of action under § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not provide a federal cause of action for a violation of state law alone.

Suarez v. Utah Board of Pardons & Parole · filed 2003-08-29

However, “a violation of state law alone does not give rise to a federal cause of action under § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not impose liability for violations of state law alone.

J.H. Ex Rel. Higgin v. Johnson · filed 2003-10-10

State law violations do not form the basis for imposing § 1983 liability.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Etheridge v. Mississippi Department of Corrections Votec Schools · filed 2003-10-21

To the extent that Etheridge is asserting that the defendants violated state law, such a claim is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for alleged violations of state law alone.

Neinast v. Board of Trustees of the Columbus Metropolitan Library Larry D. Black Vonzell L. Johnson · filed 2003-12-19

Neinast’s claim turns upon a question of state law—namely, the amount of rulemaking authority the Board properly can delegate to its Executive Director under Ohio Revised Code § 3375.40—and thus falls outside the scope of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide redress for violations of state law.

Hansel v. Brazell · filed 2004-01-05

Furthermore, Section 1983 cannot be used as redress for a violation of state law.

Section 1983 requires a violation of a federal or constitutional right; an incorrect application of state law alone is insufficient.

Davis v. Norris · filed 2004-01-22

An incorrect application of the state statute, without more, is not sufficient to establish a violation of a federal or constitutional right as required in a section 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state rules alone.

Ziegler v. Michigan · filed 2004-01-23

Upon review, we conclude that a number of the claims asserted in the complaint were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, including the claim that taking DNA samples violated Ziegler’s First Amendment rights, Shaffer v. Saffle, 148 F.3d 1180, 1181-82 (10th Cir.1998), the claim that Michigan was required to grant state freedom of information requests by prisoners, and the claim that some of Ziegler’s mail was rejected in violation of state regulations, as violations of state rules do not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Ellis v. City of Carrollton · filed 2004-01-24

A violation of state law is not cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Hoffman v. Martinez · filed 2004-02-06

“It is well established” that a violation of state law “does not create a claim under § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for a violation of state procedures without a constitutional or federal law violation.

Seibert v. Schedel · filed 2004-02-09

The lack of a constitutional or federal violation also dooms any challenge to prison procedures Seibert may have under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of rights created by state statute.

Beltran v. City of El Paso · filed 2004-04-15

However, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 because § 1983 was designed to protect against the violation of federal constitutional and statutory rights, not those created by state statute.

Section 1983 does not provide relief for a violation of state law alone.

Flanagan v. Dretke · filed 2004-04-19

Furthermore, a violation of state law, standing alone, does not establish a violation of federal constitutional law. ... Flanagan has not explained how the conduct of which he complains entitled him to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not make a violation of state rules or statutes actionable by itself.

Whitman, Jeffrey v. Nesic, Veroljub · filed 2004-05-18

Regardless of a plaintiff ’s insistence that a defendant failed to follow state law, the mere fact that state rules or statutes are violated does not in and of itself amount to a constitutional violation or give rise to an actionable § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for a violation of state arrest law alone.

Aujla v. Hinds County MS · filed 2003-02-12

Mississippi law, however, does not provide a basis for § 1983 liability.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Pollnow v. Glennon · filed 1985-03-12

Clearly, a violation of state law is not cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action merely because state officials may have violated duties imposed by state law.

Jones v. Phyfer · filed 1985-05-28

The fact that plaintiff here may have a state tort action against defendants for violation of duties based on state law, does not automatically warrant a cause of action under Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a board of education for a deprivation of property without due process even if the board’s action violated state law, where the deprivation was not random and unauthorized.

DeSimone v. BD. OF ED., S. HUNTINGTON U. FREE SCH. · filed 1985-07-12

In the instant case, the deprivation of property was committed by a Board of Education and was therefore not “random and unauthorized”, even if the deprivation may have violated state law, so that a § 1983 action is not barred.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Taylor v. Denniston · filed 2004-11-10

After careful review of the record, we conclude Taylor’s FOIA claim is not cognizable under section 1983 because it implicates only state law.

Section 1983 generally does not provide a claim for excessive force based solely on violations of state law or police procedure.

Marquez v. Albuquerque, City of · filed 2005-02-25

Similarly, “violations of state law and police procedure generally do not give rise to a 1983 claim” for excessive force.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a mere violation of state law.

Brown v. Williams · filed 2005-03-23

Insofar as Brown is arguing that he is not challenging the constitutionality of LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 15.609 but that its incorrect application to him violated his due process rights, his claim is likewise frivolous because a mere violation of state law does not state a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim based solely on an official’s misapplication of state law.

Cruz v. Aladro · filed 2005-04-22

In adopting the magistrate’s recommendation, the district court agreed with the magistrate judge that Cruz was not challenging the constitutionality of the state regulation but merely challenging the application of the state law to him, which was not a cognizable claim under § 1983. Having reviewed the record, we find no error in any of the district court’s rulings resulting in the dismissal of the complaint in this case.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal statutory or constitutional rights, not violations of state law alone.

Woodard v. Andrus · filed 2005-07-28

However, a violation of a state statute alone is not cognizable under § 1983 because § 1983 is only a remedy for violations of federal statutory and constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for a violation of state law alone.

Waubanascum, Naquase v. Shawano County · filed 2005-08-01

State law does not create duties under the federal constitution, and violations of state law are by themselves insufficient to impose liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law alone.

Stanko v. Mahar · filed 2005-08-16

An action under § 1983, however, cannot be maintained on the basis of alleged violations of state law.

Section 1983 does not provide a federal claim for a state-law violation that does not rise to a constitutional violation.

Berlickij v. Town of Castleton · filed 2005-09-02

Violations of state law that do not rise to the level of constitutional violations cannot form the basis of a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Chapman v. Arlington Housing Authority · filed 2005-10-12

A violation of state law is not cognizable under section 1983.

A violation of state law alone does not establish grounds for a § 1983 action.

Davis v. Hutchison · filed 2006-01-26

As the district court observed, the mere violation of the state code would not establish grounds for a § 1983 action and, thus, the dispositive issue in this case is whether there was probable cause for the plaintiff’s arrest.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights, but does not cover violations of state law alone.

Michael v. Ghee · filed 2006-02-01

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations of federal statutory and constitutional rights; it does not, however, cover violations of state law.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for a violation of state prison regulations unless the conduct also deprives a person of a federal right.

Stewart v. Alameida · filed 2006-02-20

Stewart’s argument misses the mark. First, Stewart’s challenge is based primarily upon standards established by CDCR regulations, not the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for conduct that violates only state law.

RITSCHEL v. City of Fountain Valley · filed 2006-02-28

But conduct by an official that violates only state law will not support a claim under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit relief in federal court against state officials based on a violation of state law.

Ameritas Life Ins. Corp. v. Morgan · filed 1991-05-24

The Pennhurst court concluded that a federal suit against state officials on the basis of state law contravenes the Eleventh Amendment and cannot be brought in federal court in a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. Plaintiff cannot circumvent this rule by suing defendants in their individual capacities as there is no evidence that defendants were acting in anything other than their official capacities as state officials.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law alone.

Beneficial Tennessee, Inc. v. The Metropolitan Government · filed 2006-03-08

Therefore, allegations of state law violations are not sufficient to support a Section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not make a state official’s violation of state law actionable without a violation of a federal right.

Starko, Inc. v. Gallegos · filed 2006-04-26

While officials should strive to obey state law, not every failure to do so is actionable under § 1983 where, as here, there is no violation of a constitutional right.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violating a prison rule unless the conduct independently violates federal law.

Pozo, Rodosvaldo v. Hein, Jane · filed 2006-05-08

The defendants acted consistently with the prison rule as it existed at the time, though Pozo would not have a claim under § 1983 even if that was not the case.

Section 1983 does not cover official conduct that violates only state law.

Wood v. Dorcas · filed 1998-03-20

As further noted by the Supreme Court, “Section 1983 does not cover official conduct that violates only state law.” ... Therefore, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment, as a matter of law, to the appellee on appellant’s Section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for a violation of state law alone.

Jackson v. Loftis · filed 2006-07-25

Even if Judge Crutchfield somehow erred or technically overstepped her authority under state law, “‘a violation of state law alone does not give rise to a federal cause of action under § 1983.’”

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of state law.

Poindexter v. McKee · filed 2006-08-07

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for a violation of a state law.

Section 1983 requires deprivation of a federally protected right under color of state law; a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution alone cannot support a claim.

Soderstrand v. OKLAHOMA, EX REL. BD. OF REGENTS · filed 2006-11-22

If this claim purports to allege a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution through § 1983, then such a claim is hereby DISMISSED because to establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a deprivation of a federally protected right under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of a state law duty alone.

Carmichael v. Pennsauken Township Board of Education · filed 2006-11-27

While Plaintiffs brief seems to imply that the state statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:37-2, which requires a school principal to report an alleged assault by a pupil, supports a basis for his § 1983 claim, the Third Circuit has stated that “a violation of a state law duty, by itself, is insufficient to state a § 1983 claim.”

Section 1983 does not make a purely state-law question actionable without a federal or constitutional implication.

Cass v. Clarke · filed 2006-12-04

Third, appellee Mike Kenney’s ability to delegate the approval of the loss of good time to appellee Fred Britten is likewise purely a question of state law, lacking any federal or constitutional implication as required to be actionable in this section 1983 suit; and in any event, this is an issue that the Nebraska courts have resolved in appellees’ favor, see Martin v. Neb. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 671 N.W.2d 613, 619-20 (duty to approve forfeiture of good time may be delegated to subordinate officials).

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state law.

Pototsky v. Napolitano · filed 2006-12-08

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for alleged violations of state law.

Section 1983 does not make a violation of police department rules or state law, by itself, a constitutional claim.

Lee Thompson, Administrator of the Estate of James Thompson and Paulette White-Thompson v. City of Chicago and Officer B · filed 2006-12-19

As discussed above, the law is clear that introduction of evidence of the CPD’s General Orders was immaterial to the Thompsons’ § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for a violation of state law unless the conduct also violates a secured federal right.

Galvin v. Town of Yarmouth · filed 2007-01-23

A violation of state law is not actionable under § 1983 unless the act complained of also violates a secured federal right.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state constitutional or statutory law.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Preston · filed 2007-01-30

And, of course, they cannot be liable under § 1983 — the only cause of action pled against them — for any violation of Jane Doe’s rights under state constitutional or statutory law.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Casey v. Livingston Parish Communications District · filed 2007-02-23

It is clear that a violation of state law does not support a Section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim based solely on a violation of state law.

Terrell v. City of El Paso · filed 2007-02-26

It is well settled that violations of state law cannot form the basis of a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a state agency’s alleged misinterpretation or misapplication of state law.

Beary Landscaping, Inc. v. Ludwig · filed 2007-03-28

The fact that a state agency allegedly misinterprets or misapplies a state statute is, for reasons explained above, not a proper subject for a Section 1983 suit.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law alone.

Colbert v. Roling · filed 2007-05-14

Therefore, the alleged state law violations do not support a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of state law alone.

Colby W. Lynch v. State · filed 2007-05-23

However, violations of state law are not actionable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state law alone.

Moore v. Owens · filed 2007-06-12

However, “violation of state law alone does not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Jacob v. Houston · filed 2007-07-10

Upon de novo review of the dismissal, see Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that plaintiffs failed to state any federal claim, see Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 1312 (8th Cir. 1997) (alleged violation of state law does not by itself state claim under § 1983).

Section 1983 permits claims alleging violations of federal rights, but allegations of state-law violations alone do not state a claim under it.

Michael v. Ghee · filed 2007-08-10

Thus, Huron Valley allows plaintiffs to raise their due process claim through § 1983; it does not provide that plaintiffs have stated a viable claim under § 1983 in their allegations of violations of Ohio state law.

Section 1983 permits challenges to state procedures only when they invoke federal statutory or constitutional rights; alleged violations of state law alone are insufficient.

Michael v. Ghee · filed 2007-08-10

Plaintiffs are correct that they may raise a challenge to an established state procedure pursuant to § 1983, but only to the extent that the challenge invokes federal statutory or constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not support claims based solely on violations of state law or a state constitution.

Laney v. Farley · filed 2007-08-28

Allegations of state law or state constitutional violations will not support a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state constitutions, statutes, or professional conduct rules.

Lynch v. Bulman · filed 2007-10-15

Lynch’s claims based on allegations Defendants violated the Colorado Constitution, various Colorado statues and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct are not cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim based solely on the violation of a state statute.

Chisolm v. Tippens · filed 2008-02-05

As we have held previously, the violation of a state statute cannot provide the basis for a claim under 42 USC § 1983.

Section 1983 does not support a claim based solely on a violation of state law.

Eidson v. Owens · filed 2008-02-13

But a violation of state law alone does not support a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law alone.

Amir-Sharif v. District Attorney's Office of Dallas County · filed 2008-06-17

Thus, to the extent that Amir- Sharif contends that the defendants violated his rights under Texas law, these contentions do not suffice to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous § 1983 claim on appeal.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of state law alone.

Johnson v. Pomeroy · filed 2008-09-23

Any rights the Johnsons may have for the violation of state law are not enforceable under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim based solely on violations of state prison regulations or directives.

Sital v. Burgio · filed 2009-01-08

Plaintiff also alleges in conclusory fashion that certain state regulations and DOCS directives were violated in connection with the misbehavior reports and disciplinary proceedings. Even if plaintiffs allegations in that regard are true, that does not establish a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 requires more than a violation of state law; the plaintiff must show a violation of a federal right.

Woodard v. Andrus · filed 2009-01-15

Of course, even assuming that the defendants have violated the law, the plaintiffs must do more than demonstrate that the defendants violated a state statute if they are to prevail under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for a violation of state law or regulations alone.

Cusamano v. Sobek · filed 2009-01-26

A violation of a state law or regulation, in and of itself, does not give rise to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action only for violations of federal law, not violations of state law alone.

Walker v. Wilkerson · filed 2009-02-06

The district court properly dismissed these claims on the basis that § 1983 provides a cause of action only for violations of federal law.

Section 1983 does not support a claim based solely on a state official’s failure to follow state law.

Clanton v. Cooper · filed 1997-11-17

However, an action may not be maintained under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a state official’s failure to adhere to state law.

Section 1983 protects federal rights violated under color of state law; a violation of state law alone does not support a claim.

Sauls v. Hutto · filed 1969-07-22

Section 1983 protects only federal rights that are violated under color of state law. The Fourteenth Amendment does not import an overriding requirement that state officials obey state laws in every regard.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Jenks v. Hull · filed 1995-09-28

Even if CPS and CPD violated state law, mere violations of state law do not constitute a violation of due process and do not provide the basis for a Sec. 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a federal cause of action for violations of state law alone.

Hughes v. Sibbetts · filed 2003-10-09

However, “a violation of state law ... alone does not give rise to a federal cause of action under § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law alone.

Manbeck v. Town of Lewisboro · filed 2009-05-29

The three groups of plaintiffs raise numerous claims of error in more than 330 pages of opening briefs, none of which has any merit, and many of which raise only issues of state law not cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for a violation of N.Y.C.P.L. § 160.50 alone.

Palacio v. Goord · filed 2009-07-14

As the district court correctly determined, because a violation of N.Y.C.P.L. § 160.50 does not create a cognizable cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Palacio’s claim as to the Defendants’ alleged violation of this statute failed as a matter of law.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state law.

Lomako v. Whitlach · filed 2009-07-28

The district court properly dismissed Lomako’s claim for violation of section 3358(b) of the California Code of Regulations because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state law.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for a violation of state law unless it causes the deprivation of a constitutional right.

Sundquist v. Philp · filed 2009-07-30

Although Sundquist contends that defendants violated sections 4001 and 4002 of ... the California Penal Code by housing him with criminal detainees, he has not shown that these provisions afford him a private right of action, or that a violation is actionable under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for a violation of state law alone.

Mueller v. Rogers · filed 2009-08-10

As a general rule, however, “a violation of state law does not lead to liabil- ity under § 1983.”

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights, not claims based only on a state constitution.

Capogrosso v. the Supreme Court of New Jersey · filed 2009-11-27

In dismissing that claim, the District Court reasoned that Capogrosso failed to state a claim cognizable under § 1983, as that provision only provides remedies for a deprivation of a person’s “rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... We agree.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state or local law.

Mitchel v. City of Santa Rosa · filed 2010-02-17

Count 1 alleges that defendant violated the City’s Personnel Rules and City Charter by releasing the investigative report to the complainants. Complaint ¶47. This claim restates verbatim the Second Cause of Action in plaintiffs complaint in Mitchel I, a claim that was dismissed by this Court on the ground it failed to allege a constitutional violation. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 699-700, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976) (a claim cannot be stated under Section 1983 for a violation of state or local law). This cause of action contains no allegations related to any violation of federal due process rights. Indeed, plaintiffs opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss alludes only to violations of state law. Accordingly, plaintiffs First Cause of Action must be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law or regulations alone.

Webster v. Fischer · filed 2010-03-09

In addition to setting forth constitutional claims, throughout his complaint plaintiff generally makes reference to and alleges violations of state law and regulations. To the extent that plaintiff attempts to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged violation of these provisions, such a claim fails as a matter of law.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state jail standards alone.

Michelle Rocha, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Raymond Dwayne Bingle v. Potter County, Texas · filed 2010-04-20

However, violations of state law are not actionable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violation of a state statute or regulation alone.

Stanley v. Vining · filed 2010-04-22

It has long been established that the violation of a state statute or regulation is insufficient alone to make a claim cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for a violation of state law alone.

Picciano v. McLoughlin · filed 2010-07-13

A violation of a state law, in and of itself, does not give rise to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law alone.

Richard v. Willy Martin, Jr. · filed 2010-07-27

Richard devotes much of his brief to his claim that St. James Parish Sheriff’s Office employees at the scene of the van accident conspired to violate state law in various ways, most specifically by failing to report the accident. His claims of state law violations are not cognizable.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Old St. George's LLC v. Bianco · filed 2010-07-30

Finally, with respect to appellants’ claims relating to the alleged interference by officials of the Town of Yorktown with appellants’ ability to access the Town’s public records, we agree with the district court that the complaint alleges, at best, only a violation of New York’s Freedom of Information Law, and not a federal constitutional claim. “[A] violation of state law is not cognizable under § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a conflict with state law alone.

Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement · filed 2010-09-01

The supposed conflict with Minnesota state law is not actionable under § 1983, Myers, 868 F.3d at 1018, and will be discussed further in Section II-G.

Section 1983 does not provide relief for noncompliance with state laws or regulations alone.

Edwards v. Faust · filed 2010-11-04

With respect to the missing property, the parties debate whether Faust and Schmidt followed established procedures for confiscating excess property, but that dispute is irrelevant because noncompliance with state laws or regulations is not an independent basis for relief under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law.

McCarthy v. City of Cleveland · filed 2010-11-09

The violation of a provision of state law is not cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim merely because a misdemeanor arrest violates a state-law rule requiring the offense to occur in the officer’s presence.

Savage v. County of Stafford, Va. · filed 2010-11-16

Savage also charges that his warrantless, misdemeanor arrest was illegal because the alleged crime took place outside of the arresting officer’s presence. This cannot serve as the basis for a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state statutes.

Peruta v. County of San Diego · filed 2010-12-10

Because there is no cause of action under section 1983 for violation of a state statute, ... the Court dismisses the claim.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal statutory and constitutional rights; state law violations alone are outside its scope.

McPeters v. Edwards · filed 2011-04-14

Violations of state law are not cognizable under Section 1983, however, because that provision "is only a remedy for violations of federal statutory and constitutional rights.” ... Therefore, the state law authority Plaintiff cites is irrelevant to the Court’s Section 1983 inquiry.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state regulations alone.

Baker v. Kernan · filed 2011-05-23

Baker insists that the prison’s visitation policy at least violated state regulations, but that alone is insufficient to sustain a suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide relief for violations of state law alone.

Miskovsky v. Jones · filed 2011-08-30

But even if the court misconstrued Oklahoma law, a violation of that law by prison officials would not be a ground for relief under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of prison regulations that do not infringe a federal right.

Quincy Sims v. Rios · filed 2011-11-01

The district court properly dismissed the action because Sims’ allegations that defendants violated prison regulations and his procedural due process rights when they unassigned him from the rehabilitation program and transferred him to another institution do not provide a cause of action under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for a state law violation alone; the plaintiff must show a deprivation of federal rights.

Brown v. Sudduth · filed 2012-03-16

Even were state courts to imply a limitation on arrest that was not followed here, violations of state law do not — “without more” — deprive federal rights redressable under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of state law alone; the plaintiff must allege deprivation of a federal right.

Shah v. Danberg · filed 2012-04-04

Violations of state law, however, are insufficient to state a claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a federal remedy for a violation of state law unless the conduct also violates constitutional rights.

Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island · filed 2012-06-15

“Unless there is a breach of constitutional rights, . . . § 1983 does not pro- vide redress in federal court for violations of state law.”

Section 1983 provides redress for denials of federally protected civil rights; a violation of state law alone is not cognizable.

Rhodes v. Pittard · filed 2012-06-19

Violations of state law are not cognizable under § 1983, which provides redress for denial of federally protected civil rights.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal law, not state law alone.

Embody v. Ward · filed 2012-08-30

But § 1983 claims are designed to vindicate federal law, not state law.

Section 1983 does not provide relief for a violation of state law or regulation by itself.

Mills v. Fischer · filed 2012-09-21

However, a violation of a state law or regulation in itself does not state a federal claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights, but does not redress violations of state law.

Clear Sky Car Wash, LLC v. City of Chesapeake · filed 2012-12-18

Because Plaintiffs allege no other federal rights, and because § 1983 does not provide redress for violations of state law, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under § 1983 upon which relief can be granted and Count IV’s § 1983 claim is therefore dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 1983 does not provide a claim solely because an officer violated a police regulation.

Cimino v. Glaze · filed 2013-01-15

Here, the district court applied the proper standard and instructed the jury to consider what a reasonable officer would have done in the defendants’ position at the time of the shooting, Amnesty Am. v. Town of W. Hartford, 361 F.3d 113, 123 (2d Cir. 2004), and that it was not to consider the internal police report finding that the defendants violated a police regulation as requiring a finding that they violated Cimino’s constitutional rights, see Doe v. Conn. Dep’t of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir. 1990) (“A violation of state law [does not] give[] plaintiffs a § 1983 claim . . . .” (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted)).

Section 1983 does not provide damages for violations of rights under state law.

Wohl v. City of Missoula · filed 2013-02-27

As an initial matter, Landowners are not entitled to damages or attorney’s fees under §§ 1983 and 1988 for violations of their rights under state law.

Section 1983 applies only to violations of federal law; a failure to follow state statutory procedures alone does not state a claim.

Humbert v. Warden SCI Mahanoy · filed 2013-03-07

However, a claim that Pennsylvania did not satisfy its own statutory scheme for providing instructions on how to correct erroneous data does not, in itself, state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which applies only to violations of federal law.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a municipality’s failure to comply with state law.

Six Star Holdings, LLC v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2013-03-18

However, in the present case, the plaintiffs have brought no state-law claims and proceed only under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Fourth Amended and Supplemental Complaint ¶ 101, ECF No. 36. Thus, these matters of state law are not subject to review in this case.

Section 1983 requires a violation of federal law; violations of state law or organizational rules alone cannot support a claim.

Lantz v. Office of the Jackson Township Trustee · filed 2013-03-29

Because plaintiffs have identified no other violations of federal law, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ § 1983 declaratory judgment claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of state law alone.

Winger v. Pierce · filed 2013-04-08

Early on Winger protested to some of the defendants that his loss of yard privileges would exceed the duration allowed under state law, but § 1983 is not a means of enforcing state law or recovering for its violation.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit based on a violation of state law alone.

Avery v. Kratz · filed 2013-04-10

But Avery may not base his § 1983 suit on a violation of state law alone.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim based solely on a question of state law.

Hightower v. Godinez · filed 2013-04-26

And to the extent Hightower argues that he was exempt from the co-payment because he met a statutory exception for treatment of “chronic” pain, see 730 ILCS § 5/3-6-2(f), that is a question of state law, which cannot form the basis for a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law alone.

Poindexter v. Department of Human Resources · filed 2013-05-21

She also asks the court to declare that Defendants violated state law (Doc. # 1 ¶ 33), but as set out in Part IV.B., violations of state law cannot serve as the basis of § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for violations of state law alone.

Stevenson v. Blytheville School District No. 5 · filed 2013-07-01

Violations of state law, state-agency regulations, and state-court orders do not, by themselves, state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for a government official’s alleged violation of state law.

Gray v. Cannon · filed 2013-07-16

Whether Defendants properly interpreted the administrative directive has no bearing here because this is a § 1983 suit, and § 1983 does not does not provide a remedy for a government official’s alleged violation of state law.

Section 1983 does not impose liability solely for failing to comply with Pennsylvania’s mandatory reporting statutes.

Hamilton v. Spriggle · filed 2013-08-14

An alleged failure to act pursuant to Pennsylvania’s statutes does not, however, automatically give rise to a Constitutional violation under § 1983.

Section 1983 cannot be used to enforce state law.

Norman Green, Jr. v. Huibregtse · filed 2013-08-19

In other words, §1983 cannot be used to enforce state law.

Section 1983 provides no relief for conduct that violates state law without also violating federal law.

Snider International Corporation v. Town of Forest Heights, MD · filed 2014-01-07

Even if the citations violated Maryland law, the noncompliance would not violate federal law and thus cannot give rise to § 1983 relief.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Fails v. Jefferson Davis County Public Schools · filed 2014-01-15

In short, a violation of state law cannot, without more, serve as the basis for a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 requires a violation of federal rights; a violation of state law alone cannot support a claim.

Fails v. Swan · filed 2014-01-20

In short, a violation of state law cannot, without more, serve as the basis for a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 liability cannot rest on a violation of state prison protocol alone; it requires a violation of federal rights.

Williams v. Epps · filed 2014-04-08

Hampton correctly notes that “[violations of non-federal laws cannot for a basis for liability under § 1983.” However, Hampton’s liability here is not based on a violation of MDOC protocol — it is based on a violation of the plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment.

Section 1983 does not provide relief for a violation of District of Columbia law unless the violation also infringes a federal right.

Kingman Park Civic Association v. Gray · filed 2014-05-14

The Court finds that none of the state law violations that Plaintiff has alleged rise to the level of qualifying for relief under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for every violation of state or local procedural law.

Reach Academy for Boys & Girls, Inc. v. Delaware Department of Education · filed 2014-05-30

“Section 1983 ... may not be invoked every time local officials allegedly act contrary to' state or local procedural law.”

Section 1983 unlawful-seizure claims are governed by Fourth Amendment law rather than state arrest statutes.

Gregory v. Burnett · filed 2014-08-20

Whether Gregory’s arrest constituted an unlawful seizure for the purposes of § 1983 must be determined on the basis of Fourth Amendment law, not on the basis of a state statute.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Diaz v. Lampela · filed 2015-02-11

Without that asserted constitutional dimension, the dispute over the parole board’s understanding and implementation of SOLSA is merely a matter of state law. “An action under § 1983 . . . cannot be maintained on the basis of alleged violations of state law.”

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone; it protects federal rights.

Heath Adkisson v. Blytheville School District 5 · filed 2015-08-31

The appellants' due process and equal protection claims are premised on the District's purported taking of the exemption in violation of the 2013 Act. But "violations of state laws . . . do not by themselves state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 guards and vindicates federal rights alone."

Section 1983 does not support a claim based solely on a defendant’s failure to comply with state law.

Walker v. City of New York · filed 2015-11-02

A bare assertion that Defendants failed to comply with state law, even if true, is insufficient to sustain a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Busey v. Richland School District · filed 2015-12-22

To find otherwise would directly contravene clear -precedent holding that violations of state law do not give rise to section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Zucker v. City of Farmington Hills · filed 2016-03-14

Zucker’s argument fails because we have repeatedly held that a plaintiff cannot allege a violation of state law in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires an alleged violation of federal law; a violation of state law alone does not create liability.

Fotinos v. Fotinos · filed 2016-03-18

Appellants failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “As a general rule, a violation of state law does not lead to liability under § 1983.” Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 1998). Appellants have failed to allege any violations of federal law in connection with their § 1983 cause of action.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Busey v. Richland School District · filed 2016-03-23

To find otherwise would directly contravene clear precedent holding that violations of state law do not give rise to section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for a violation of state law that does not raise a federal constitutional claim.

Orr v. Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine · filed 2016-08-11

Orr’s claim that the Board failed to comply with Nevada’s statutory license renewal requirements in imposing the fine does not raise a federal constitutional claim and is not cognizable under § 1983.

A violation of state law alone does not state a claim under § 1983.

Grady v. Greenfield · filed 2016-11-22

Moreover, a violation of state law does not satisfy the requirements for stating a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Pollitt v. Casa Grande Union High School District No. 82 · filed 2017-01-30

The district court also properly dismissed Pollitt’s conspiracy to blacklist claim, alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because “a claim for violation of state law is not cognizable under § 1983.” Cornejo v. County of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853, 855 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007).

Section 1983 provides a damages remedy for violations of federal law, but not for violations of state law alone.

Brown v. Randle · filed 2017-02-07

But 42 U.S.C. §1983 does not authorize federal courts to order state officials to pay damages for violations of state law; remedies in §1983 suits are for violations of fed- eral law only.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state law.

Jennings v. Town of Stratford · filed 2017-06-27

The complaint also expressly alleged a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. # 1 at 5 (¶ 2)) but of course § 1983 does not provide a cause of action for a violation of state law.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for a violation of state law alone.

Shugart v. Six Unknown Fannin County Sheriffs · filed 2017-08-02

Likewise, to the extent that Shugart contends that the district court erred by dismissing his due process claim alleging that the destruction of his greenhouse resulted from a misapplication of Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 481.153 and 481.183, his argument lacks merit since state law claims are not cognizable under § 1983.

Section 1983 may provide a remedy when a state-law violation deprives someone of a federally protected right, but a failure to provide protections beyond those required by federal law does not support a claim.

Roybal v. Toppenish School District · filed 2017-09-20

We recognize that a violation of state law causing the deprivation of a federally protected right may form the basis of a § 1983 action. But this rule does not apply where, as here, the state-created protections reach beyond that guaranteed by federal law.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim based solely on state law.

Nyabwa v. Lychner · filed 2017-11-15

Similarly, his reliance on Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Ann. § 103.001 or other state law fails to state a valid claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide relief for violations of state law alone.

Bennett v. Meisner · filed 2018-02-28

... but a violation of state law does not support relief under §1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for a violation of state law alone.

Iraheta v. Linebarger Goggan Blair, LLP, et a · filed 2018-05-09

In any event, “violations of state law do not—‘without more’—deprive federal rights redressable under Section 1983.” Brown v. Sudduth, 675 F.3d 472, 478 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 757, 760 n.7 (5th Cir. 1977)).

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for the violation of a state statute.

M.J. Burrelli v. Julian · filed 2018-05-17

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for the violation of a state statute.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state law, including claims based on public policy or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Guerrero v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands State Board of Education · filed 2018-05-30

Neither of these state law claims are civil rights violations that may be raised via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of state law alone.

Rayfield v. Grand Rapids, City of · filed 2018-07-17

As an initial matter, to the extent Mr. Rayfield seeks relief for alleged purported violations of state law, § 1983 does not provide a remedy.