42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s challenge to conditions of confinement.

Sollis v. Trani · filed 2016-10-12

As the district court recognized, a challenge to conditions of confinement should be made under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than a habeas petition.

A § 1983 claim challenging bodily restraints during civil commitment is not barred by Heck when it challenges confinement conditions rather than the commitment itself.

Ralph Smith, Jr. v. James Hood, III · filed 2018-08-10

Smith’s claim that those Defendants’ use of restraints amounted to a due process violation is a challenge to the conditions of his confinement rather than the fact of his confinement itself, and is thus unquestionably not barred by Heck.

Section 1983 provides a way for prisoners to seek relief concerning the conditions of their confinement.

Jamison v. Saad · filed 2019-03-25

If the Petitioner wishes to seek relief regarding the conditions of his confinement he should file a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for constitutional challenges to conditions of confinement, but not to the fact or length of custody.

Guillaume v. Souza · filed 2019-05-06

An action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a proper remedy for constitutional challenges to the conditions of confinement, but not to the fact or length of custody.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for a prisoner's challenge to conditions of confinement when the prisoner does not challenge the conviction or sentence or seek earlier release.

Grandinetti v. Thomas · filed 2019-07-08

The Court therefore construes this pleading as a civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Section 1983 permits prisoners to bring claims about conditions of confinement, including access to legal materials.

Gard v. Fluke · filed 2019-07-09

Such a claim may be brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner's conditions-of-confinement claims.

Stouffer v. Carpenter · filed 2019-08-05

Rather than helping Mr. Stouffer, this case provides an example of why his conditions-of- confinement claims should have been brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for a prisoner's claims about transfer or personal safety as conditions of confinement.

(HC) Scott v. Fox · filed 2019-09-19

Third, if petitioner is concerned about being transferred, or about his personal safety before or after he is transferred, such allegations must be brought in a civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for state prisoners challenging conditions of confinement.

Haywood v. San Diego, CA Sheriff · filed 2019-09-24

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for a prisoner’s challenges to the conditions of confinement.

Quair III v. Houston · filed 2019-10-03

Those challenges concern the conditions of his confinement and must be raised in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for claims about conditions of confinement.

Dawes v. The People · filed 2019-10-07

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the “federal analogue” to § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for challenges to conditions of confinement.

Dawes v. The People · filed 2019-10-11

Challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for a state prisoner’s constitutional challenge to prison conditions, but not to the fact or length of custody.

Koivisto v. Warden · filed 2019-10-17

On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for a prisoner's constitutional challenge to a transfer that concerns the conditions rather than the fact or duration of confinement.

Powell v. Warden · filed 2019-10-21

While the issue that Mr. Powell raises is complex, the cases on which he relies confirm that this court’s judgment was correct – even if Mr. Powell had a liberty interest such that due process was required before transferring him from the re-entry center, that claim must be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is a civil rights route for prisoners’ conditions of confinement claims that would not lead to earlier release.

Schuett v. Kolton · filed 2019-10-22

Because success on Schuett’s claims would not lead to his immediate or speedier release, they do not fall in the “core” of habeas and must be brought, if at all, under § 1983 or Bivens.

Section 1983 is the exclusive vehicle for claims challenging the conditions or circumstances of confinement.

Brooks v. Williams · filed 2019-10-23

Instead, his request for relief involves the conditions or circumstances of his confinement. Accordingly, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is “the exclusive vehicle” for his claims. Id.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle, if any, for claims about pretrial confinement conditions or retaliation.

O'Rourke v. Parker · filed 2019-10-23

Third, the claims Petitioner asserts in his amended petition that challenge the conditions of his pretrial confinement—specifically, the claims he asserts in Counts Nine and Ten—and the ... “retaliation” claim he asserts in his “emergency objection to criminal reprisal by Respondent” (Dkt. 12) must be asserted, if at all, through an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not through a § 2241 habeas petition.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for constitutional challenges to prison conditions.

Kulick v. Ogemaw County Sheriff · filed 2019-10-31

The motion is a challenge to the conditions of confinement, and the proper remedy for a constitutional challenge to the conditions of prison life is a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a habeas corpus petition.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement.

Warshaw v. Covello · filed 2019-11-04

On the other hand, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for civil rights claims concerning conditions of confinement, rather than habeas corpus.

Houston v. Dzurenda · filed 2019-11-04

Additionally, Petitioner raises some claims regarding conditions of ... confinement that should be raised in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than ... through habeas.

Section 1983 permits prisoners to challenge conditions of confinement, but a court may decline to convert a habeas petition into a civil rights action when similar actions are already pending.

Bennetti 85442 v. Shinn · filed 2019-11-15

Petitioner is challenging his conditions of confinement, not his custody. ... The Court, in its discretion, declines to treat Petitioner’s action as a civil rights action because Petitioner is raising substantially similar claims in two pending civil rights actions, Bennetti v. Coleman, CV 19-05021-PHX-DGC (JFM); and Bennetti v. Ryan, CV 19-05417-PHX-DGC (JFM).

Section 1983 provides a remedy for a state prisoner's constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement, but not to the fact or length of custody.

Jones v. Polland · filed 2019-11-18

On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a civil rights claim challenging conditions of confinement.

Manygoat v. Havel · filed 2019-11-21

The Court determined that Manygoat’s filings are a challenge to the conditions of his confinement and are properly treated as civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits prisoners to seek relief for conditions of confinement.

Titus v. Frakes · filed 2019-12-11

Because it plainly appears from the petition Mr. Titus is not entitled to relief, I will dismiss this action without prejudice to reassertion in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits prisoners to bring claims about conditions of confinement rather than the validity or duration of their confinement.

Johnson v. Lewis · filed 2019-12-31

On the other hand, challenges involving the circumstances of confinement, or how one ended up in confinement, may be presented in a § 1983 action. ... In this case, Johnson seeks the return of the ‘Hearing Impaired’ sign that he hangs on his cell door at SECC. He does not challenge the validity or duration of his confinement; instead, he complains about a condition of confinement. As such, this matter is more properly brought as a civil rights action.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for a state prisoner challenging conditions of confinement.

Dunsmore v. Gore · filed 2020-02-26

To the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he must do so, if at all, in a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for a prisoner's inadequate medical care claim concerning conditions of confinement.

(HC) Lopez-Miranda v. Merlak · filed 2020-03-04

As the findings and recommendations correctly conclude, this claim is not cognizable in this habeas corpus action but rather may be pursued only as a claim brought in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the civil rights vehicle for challenges to conditions of confinement.

DOUGLAS v. WARDEN · filed 2020-03-04

Challenges to the conditions of confinement must be brought in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than a habeas action, as Mr. Douglas attempts in this petition.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for a prisoner’s conditions-of-confinement claim that would not affect the length of incarceration.

Koivisto v. Asuncion · filed 2020-03-10

This means that his claim is not the proper subject of a habeas action, but must be brought as a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement.

Tauno August Koivisto, III v. Asuncion · filed 2020-03-11

Prisoners wishing to challenge the conditions of their confinement must file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights remedy for constitutional challenges to prison conditions, including transfers between prisons.

Cain v. Winn · filed 2020-03-16

The proper remedy for a constitutional challenge to the conditions of prison life is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action to challenge conditions of confinement.

(HC) Kibunguchy v. Tylenol Corporation · filed 2020-03-20

The purpose of a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is to challenge conditions of confinement.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement.

Koivisto v. Warden · filed 2020-03-23

Prisoners wishing to challenge the conditions of their confinement must file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s challenge to conditions of confinement.

Koivisto v. Accusion · filed 2020-03-25

Prisoners wishing to challenge the conditions of their confinement must file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for constitutional challenges to conditions of confinement, while challenges to the fact or duration of confinement belong in habeas corpus.

Buckelew v. Washington · filed 2020-03-31

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is a proper way for a prisoner to challenge conditions of confinement, including placement in segregation.

Richards 641715 v. Taskila · filed 2020-03-31

Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of his placement in segregation are claims regarding the conditions of his confinement, not its fact or duration; therefore, the claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the appropriate vehicle for a prisoner’s claim about the conditions of confinement.

(HC) Peterson v. Diaz · filed 2020-04-02

Although petitioner’s request argues the current prison conditions expose him to a higher risk of harm due to potential exposure to COVID-19, petitioner’s request relates to the conditions of petitioner’s confinement and accordingly is more appropriately brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner's inadequate medical care claim concerning conditions of confinement.

Jamison v. Smith · filed 2020-04-06

Because, Plaintiff's claims of inadequate medical care pertain to the conditions of his confinement and not to the fact or duration of his confinement, he must assert them in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement.

Koivisto v. Harris · filed 2020-04-07

Prisoners wishing to challenge the conditions of their confinement must file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for prisoners challenging their conditions of confinement.

Koivisto v. Warden · filed 2020-04-14

Prisoners wishing to challenge the conditions of their confinement must file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the appropriate vehicle for a state prisoner’s claim about conditions of confinement.

(HC) Phea v. Pfeiffer · filed 2020-04-16

Although petitioner’s request argues the current prison conditions expose him to a higher risk of harm due to potential exposure to COVID-19, petitioner’s request relates to the conditions of petitioner’s confinement and accordingly is more appropriately brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for a prisoner's challenge to conditions of confinement that would not affect the length of incarceration.

Koivisto v. Warden · filed 2020-04-21

This means that his claim is not the proper subject of a habeas action, but must be brought as a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for claims challenging conditions of confinement.

Evil v. Whitmer · filed 2020-04-22

Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of his custody in the jail because of his particular susceptibility to respiratory disease are principally claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a separate civil rights action for claims challenging conditions of confinement.

Headrick v. Scott · filed 2020-04-24

Any claims challenging his conditions of confinement can only be considered in a separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for a state prisoner’s constitutional challenge to prison conditions, but not to the fact or length of custody.

Lewis v. Hon. Janis L. Sammartino · filed 2020-04-29

On the other hand, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.

Section 1983 conditions-of-confinement claims generally must be brought in a separate civil rights action rather than in a habeas petition.

STEPNEY v. ANDERSON · filed 2020-04-29

Absent truly extraordinary circumstances, however, a § 1983 conditions of confinement claim may not be raised in a habeas petition, and must instead be brought in a separate civil rights action.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for a state prisoner’s claims challenging conditions of confinement.

Housh v. Rackley · filed 2020-05-13

To the extent that petitioner seeks redress for, or remedy with respect to, the alleged retaliation, the alleged unjustified placement in administrative segregation, and the denial of access to his legal and court mail, these are claims that challenge his conditions of confinement and must be brought in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for a state prisoner challenging unconstitutional prison conditions, but not the fact or length of custody.

Buckelew v. Gore · filed 2020-05-19

On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for a state detainee’s constitutional challenge to conditions of detention, but not to the fact or length of custody.

Buckelew v. Gore · filed 2020-05-28

On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state detainee who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his detention, but not to the fact or length of his custody.

Section 1983 provides a way to bring claims about conditions of confinement that do not challenge the legality of custody.

Lewis v. State of Tennessee · filed 2020-06-02

Such claims “fall outside of the cognizable core of habeas corpus relief,” and are properly raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the vehicle for a prisoner’s challenge to conditions of confinement when success would not necessarily speed release from custody.

Harper v. CDCR · filed 2020-06-05

Because success on this claim would not necessarily spell Petitioner’s speedier release from custody, it falls outside the core of habeas relief and may be brought only as a civil rights challenge to the conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement; a request for release from custody belongs in habeas corpus.

Crater 187673 v. Brown · filed 2020-06-08

Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a pretrial detainee’s constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement arising from COVID-19 risk.

Sanchez v. Greene · filed 2020-06-09

As an initial matter, Sanchez’s claims concerning the constitutionality of his pre-trial detention because of his alleged susceptibility to COVID-19 challenges the conditions of his confinement, which should be raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a means to bring claims about conditions of confinement.

Calderon v. Frakes · filed 2020-06-18

To the extent Petitioner asserts claims related to his conditions of confinement, such claims are dismissed without prejudice to reassertion in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner to challenge conditions of confinement.

(HC) Hairston v. Zulfa · filed 2020-06-22

and a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of confinement.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for prisoners challenging unconstitutional conditions of confinement and seeking relief other than release.

Vermett 238465 v. Brown · filed 2020-06-23

Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of his custody in the prison because of risks posed by COVID-19 are principally claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is a proper vehicle for constitutional challenges to prison conditions.

Sewell v. Brown · filed 2020-06-30

Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of his custody in the prison because of risks posed by COVID-19 are principally claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s claim challenging conditions of confinement.

Harrison 156814 v. Rewerts · filed 2020-06-30

Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a way to challenge unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

Mott-Bey 162319 v. Horton · filed 2020-06-30

Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement.

Calhoun 379175 v. Burt · filed 2020-07-15

Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of his continued custody in light of the danger posed by COVID-19 are principally claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits constitutional challenges to conditions of confinement, but a request for release from custody must proceed through habeas corpus.

Moss v. Winn · filed 2020-07-16

The Supreme Court has made clear that constitutional challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are the proper subject of a habeas corpus petition rather than a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Constitutional challenges to the conditions of confinement are proper subjects for relief under § 1983. ... The remedy sought by Moss for the alleged constitutional violation—release from custody and not damages or injunctive relief—is in the nature of habeas relief. ... The Court will therefore address Moss’s petition as one for a writ of habeas corpus.

Section 1983 provides the civil-rights action for a prisoner’s claims about conditions of confinement.

Knox v. Sharp · filed 2020-07-20

And it properly rejected the third set of claims because they had to be presented in a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a habeas action, since they concern the conditions of confinement.

Section 1983 is a proper vehicle for a prisoner’s claim about unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

Martinezgarcia 768723 v. Washington · filed 2020-07-23

Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a way for prisoners to challenge conditions of confinement; a request for release from custody belongs in habeas corpus.

Adams 268663 v. Horton · filed 2020-07-23

Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s challenge to conditions of confinement when the prisoner seeks relief other than release.

Townsend 252037 v. Brown · filed 2020-07-23

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for claims about unconstitutional prison conditions that seek relief other than release from custody.

McKissic 124902 v. Washington · filed 2020-07-23

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the vehicle for a prisoner’s conditions of confinement claim that would not affect the length of incarceration.

Maynard v. Cortina · filed 2020-07-24

This means that his claim is not the proper subject of a habeas action but must be brought as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for challenges to conditions of confinement.

Rahman Rushing v. California Institute for Men · filed 2020-07-28

Although Petitioner does not state the specific relief he seeks, this challenge concerns the conditions of his confinement and must be raised in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s challenge to conditions of confinement; a request for release from custody belongs in habeas corpus.

Allen 732946 v. Washington · filed 2020-07-28

Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of his custody in the prison because of risks posed by COVID-19 are principally claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement seeking relief other than release.

Olver 972624 v. Brown · filed 2020-07-28

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is a proper vehicle for constitutional challenges to conditions of confinement.

Phillips-Addis 420015 v. Parish · filed 2020-07-28

Thus, to the extent Petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement, those claims are properly brought in an action under § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner's challenge to conditions of confinement when the prisoner seeks relief other than release from custody.

Phillips 141807 v. Rewerts · filed 2020-07-28

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for challenging prison conditions when the claimant seeks relief other than release from custody.

Minnie 284988 v. Brown · filed 2020-07-29

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a way to challenge the conditions under which a state prisoner serves a sentence, including the place of confinement.

Bradley v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution · filed 2020-07-29

On the contrary, Campbell maintains the long-standing distinction between actions challenging the constitutionality of custody per se and the means of carrying out that custody; the former action must be brought in habeas and the latter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner's constitutional conditions of confinement claim seeking relief other than release.

Maclin v. Rewerts · filed 2020-07-30

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner seeking relief from unconstitutional conditions of confinement other than release from custody.

Whitley 247537 v. Horton · filed 2020-07-30

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for challenging prison conditions when the prisoner seeks relief other than release from custody.

Dinoffria 232848 v. Brown · filed 2020-07-30

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner's constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement.

Mendez 229145 v. Brown · filed 2020-07-30

Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for claims about conditions of confinement.

Hill v. Tyler · filed 2020-07-31

It seems, however, that in his initial filing, Plaintiff complains about conditions of confinement at SVSP, see dkt. 1, and such claims are more properly brought in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a state prisoner's constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement.

Madison 191690 v. Burt · filed 2020-08-03

Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for constitutional challenges to prison conditions when the prisoner seeks relief other than release from custody.

Lester 161276 v. Horton · filed 2020-08-03

Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of his custody in the prison because of risks posed by COVID-19 are principally claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for constitutional challenges to conditions of confinement.

Person 310460 v. Brown · filed 2020-08-04

Constitutional challenges to the conditions of confinement, on the other hand, are proper subjects for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is a proper vehicle for constitutional challenges to prison conditions.

Reed 276650 v. Washington · filed 2020-08-04

Constitutional challenges to the conditions of confinement, on the other hand, are proper subjects for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement when the prisoner seeks relief other than release.

House 583041 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-08-04

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a way to challenge unconstitutional conditions of confinement when the prisoner seeks relief other than release.

Watts 227106 v. Washington · filed 2020-08-04

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for prisoners challenging their conditions of confinement.

Rice v. Gonzalez · filed 2020-08-06

This claim concerns conditions of confinement, which must be challenged in a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for constitutional challenges to prison conditions that seek relief other than release from custody.

Littlejohn 141899 v. Whitmer · filed 2020-08-07

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the civil rights remedy for prisoners’ conditions-of-confinement claims, including inadequate medical care.

Maynard v. Bright · filed 2020-08-10

This means that his claim is not the proper subject of a habeas action, but must be brought as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a way for prisoners to bring constitutional challenges to their conditions of confinement.

Williams 236300 v. Washington · filed 2020-08-10

Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for a state prisoner challenging the conditions of confinement rather than the fact or length of custody.

(HC) Uhuru v. People of the State of California · filed 2020-08-13

On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s claim seeking relief from unconstitutional conditions of confinement rather than release from custody.

Foster 187621 v. Washington · filed 2020-08-18

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is a proper vehicle for constitutional challenges to prison conditions, but a request for release from custody belongs in habeas corpus.

Davis 227488 v. Horton · filed 2020-08-19

Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of his custody in the prison because of risks posed by COVID-19 are principally claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement.

Plair 172434 v. Rewerts et el · filed 2020-08-19

Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of his custody in the prison because of risks posed by COVID-19 are principally claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner's constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement when the prisoner seeks relief other than release.

Howell 178115 v. Rewerts · filed 2020-08-19

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s conditions-of-confinement claim seeking relief other than release.

James 185721 v. Rewerts · filed 2020-08-20

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner's conditions-of-confinement claim seeking relief other than release.

Bragg 151749 v. Rewerts · filed 2020-08-20

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a way to challenge prison conditions, but a request for release from custody must be brought through habeas corpus.

Powell 261114 v. Washington · filed 2020-08-24

Constitutional challenges to the conditions of confinement, on the other hand, are proper subjects for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the civil rights vehicle for claims challenging unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

Anderson v. State of Nevada · filed 2020-08-24

Anderson must raise these claims in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is an appropriate vehicle for a state prisoner's challenge to the conditions of confinement.

Holt v. United States · filed 2020-08-25

What is more, he does not contest the constitutionality of his conviction or sentence, but the conditions of his confinement, a claim more appropriately brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prison conditions claim seeking relief other than release from custody.

Wilson 194476 v. Horton · filed 2020-08-28

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is a vehicle for prisoners to challenge unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

Hurst 190769 v. Rewerts · filed 2020-09-01

Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a way to challenge unconstitutional prison conditions, but a request for release from custody belongs in habeas corpus.

Johnson 753595 v. Burt · filed 2020-09-01

Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of his custody in the prison because of risks posed by COVID-19 are principally claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper civil action for a prisoner’s claim that conditions of confinement violate federal constitutional rights.

Allen v. Buckel · filed 2020-09-02

To the extent Petitioner is complaining that the conditions of his confinement, including the manner in which he is receiving treatment for or protection from Covid-19, violate his federal constitutional rights, the proper form of action is a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for challenges to conditions of confinement.

SCHREANE v. LAKE · filed 2020-09-14

If the petitioner wishes to assert a claim challenging the conditions of his confinement, he must do so under the civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for challenges to prison conditions.

Rahman R. Rushing v. Warden · filed 2020-09-16

Although Petitioner does not state the specific relief he seeks, this challenge concerns the conditions of his confinement and must be raised in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s constitutional challenge to conditions of confinement when the prisoner seeks relief other than release.

Sanders 305405 v. Washington · filed 2020-09-16

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s claims challenging conditions of confinement, even when the complaint also includes a possible habeas claim.

Eberly v. Gray · filed 2020-09-16

Even assuming that plaintiff’s claim for loss of good time credits allegedly caused by the decision to confine him in quarantine due to COVID-19 is one which falls within the domain of habeas, plaintiff has advanced other claims challenging his conditions of confinement and alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights which are properly brought only in a §1983 action.

Section 1983 is the vehicle for a state prisoner’s claims challenging conditions of confinement, including denial of access to a law library or mail.

Housh v. Rackley · filed 2020-09-28

To the extent that petitioner seeks redress for, or remedy with respect to, the denial of ... access to the law library and his mail, these are claims that challenge his conditions of ... confinement and must be brought in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a state inmate to bring constitutional claims challenging conditions of confinement.

Lindsey v. Warden · filed 2020-10-08

Because Plaintiff’s claims are cognizable under section 1983, and Plaintiff is a pro se inmate, the Court has an obligation to and does construe Plaintiff’s pleading as a section 1983 complaint.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for a prisoner challenging conditions of confinement, including denial of access to a law library.

Berryman v. Chapman · filed 2020-10-08

Petitioner’s claim that he is being denied meaningful access to a law library should not be brought as a habeas action, but should instead be brought as a civil action under § 1983 because it involves a challenge to his conditions of confinement.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner to challenge conditions of confinement.

Jackson v. Lucas · filed 2020-10-14

A prisoner who wishes to challenge the conditions of confinement must do so under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for a prisoner's access-to-courts claim concerning conditions of confinement.

Harvey v. Myers · filed 2020-10-21

To the extent Harvey seeks relief for these alleged violations of his right to access the courts, he must bring such claims in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as they are not the proper subject of a habeas action.

Section 1983 provides a remedy against state officials for challenges to conditions of confinement.

Sloat v. Marion County Law Enforcement Center · filed 2020-10-22

If a prisoner is not challenging the fact of his confinement, but instead the conditions under which he is being held, his available remedy is under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against state officials) or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (against federal officials).

Section 1983 is the vehicle for a state prisoner's conditions of confinement claim that does not challenge the fact or duration of custody.

Lowther v. State of Hawaii · filed 2020-10-27

Thus, an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “is the exclusive vehicle for claims brought by state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas corpus.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927. ... The first three grounds are within the core of habeas corpus and are properly raised in a § 2254 petition; the fourth is not.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for claims challenging unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

Hallman v. Director, TDCJ-CID · filed 2020-10-27

It is also ORDERED that the present cause of action shall proceed as a civil rights case, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for conditions-of-confinement claims that would not necessarily entitle a detainee to release.

Pitts v. Summerville · filed 2020-10-28

Pitts’ conditions of confinement claims, if successful, would not necessarily entitle him to release from custody and are therefore cognizable only under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not in this habeas action.

Section 1983 is the proper avenue for challenging conditions of confinement.

Mitchell v. Barker · filed 2020-10-28

A civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a habeas proceeding, is the proper avenue by which to raise a challenge to any of Petitioner’s conditions of confinement.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for a state prisoner challenging the conditions of confinement.

Dunsmore v. Gore · filed 2020-11-13

To the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, such a challenge must be brought, if at all, in a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s conditions-of-confinement claim seeking relief other than release.

Moore 208380 v. Morrison · filed 2020-11-30

A claim seeking relief other than release—the relief Petitioner seeks in the alternative here—is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a state prisoner to challenge conditions of confinement, but a challenge seeking release from confinement belongs in habeas corpus.

Ari v. Montes · filed 2020-12-04

“An inmate’s challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.”

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for claims challenging prison conditions.

Blacher v. Pollard · filed 2020-12-11

And to the extent petitioner raises claims challenging the conditions of confinement at ... RJD, the claims are dismissed without prejudice to bringing in a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for challenges to prison conditions.

Carruthers v. Warden · filed 2020-12-15

Conditions of confinement must be challenged through a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is a proper vehicle for challenging prison conditions when success would not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.

Bryant v. Kibler · filed 2020-12-17

It is well established in the Ninth Circuit that habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where, as here, a successful challenge to a prison condition or event will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.

Section 1983 is the civil rights action for prisoners challenging their conditions of confinement.

Chiras v. Marshall · filed 2021-01-04

Beyond these problems, the magistrate judge and district court correctly determined that Mr. Chiras’s speedy trial claim should have been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims should have been brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for a prisoner's challenge to conditions of confinement that could be remedied without release.

Noel v. Winn · filed 2021-01-05

Claims which challenge the conditions of confinement should normally be brought as a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights action for challenges to prison conditions, including threats to prisoners’ health and safety.

Gonzalez v. Warden · filed 2021-01-13

The Court notes that challenges to conditions of confinement, threats to safety or health based on inmate population density, including exposure to the COVID-19 virus, lack of medical testing and medical staff, or unsanitary conditions are properly raised in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil rights remedy for a state prisoner challenging a condition of imprisonment without seeking release from custody.

Porter v. Yokom · filed 2021-01-13

Rather, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the appropriate remedy for a state prisoner challenging a condition of his imprisonment.

Section 1983 is the proper avenue for a prisoner challenging conditions of confinement and seeking relief other than release.

Webb 236602 v. Jackson · filed 2021-01-22

A claim seeking relief other than release is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a way for prisoners to challenge the conditions of their confinement.

MARTIN v. Chapman · filed 2021-01-26

Here, mandamus is not the only means for Petitioner ... to attain the relief he desires because he can seek immediate release from custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and can challenge the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A damages claim against government employees for false arrest and prosecution in violation of constitutional rights may be construed as a Section 1983 civil rights claim.

(PC) Lal v. United States of America · filed 2020-10-20

The court notes that plaintiff’s original complaint was construed as a civil rights claim pursuant to § 1983 because plaintiff sought damages from various government employees for false arrest and prosecution in violation of various constitutional amendments.

Section 1983 does not permit separate suits against municipal departments that lack independent legal or corporate status.

JOHNSON v. CITY OF ERIE POLICE BUREAU DEPT. ERIE, PA · filed 2020-07-22

Here, Plaintiff has sued two entities – the City of Erie Police Department, and the “Mayor’s Office” – which are nothing more than “arms” of the City itself. Because they lack any independent legal or corporate status, they are not subject to suit under §1983.

Section 1983 authorizes relief only against parties treated as statutory “persons” and does not permit relief barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Assaf v. University of Texas System · filed 1975-09-04

In finding jurisdiction, this court rejects any construction that would permit plaintiff to seek relief under 42 U.S.O. § 1983 against parties not construed to be “persons” under that statute, nor to obtain any relief prohibited by the eleventh amendment.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against federal officials acting under color of federal law.

Main-Amherst Business Ass'n, Inc. v. Adams · filed 1978-12-07

Section 1983 does not apply to federal officials acting under color of federal law.

Section 1983 permits a suit for constitutional deprivation against a private entity that performs a state function under authority granted by state law.

The Honorable Cliff Finch, Governor of the State of Mississippi v. Mississippi State Medical Association, Inc. · filed 1978-12-07

If the plaintiffs establish one or more of their claims, relief may properly be accorded by an injunction against the Medical Association. If, for example, the statute is held constitutional, and it is shown that the Association has been guilty of racial discrimination in its actions under it, an injunction may properly issue. If it is established that the statute is unconstitutional, the Association may be enjoined from submitting any further nominations. Thus the Association is properly a defendant, for under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit may properly be brought and relief accorded against “every person” who under color of state law “subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen to [constitutional] deprivation.”

Section 1983 permits a local governing body and its officials in their official capacities to be sued for declaratory or injunctive relief when the challenged action implements a decision affirmatively adopted and promulgated by the body’s officers.

Pico v. BOARD OF ED., ISLAND TREES UNION FREE SCH. · filed 1979-08-02

Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under section 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision affirmatively adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers. ... Since these books were removed from the Island Trees school library pursuant to a decision affirmatively adopted and promulgated by the board, the court does have subject matter jurisdiction under § 1983 over the board and its individual members in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not treat a State as a “person” and cannot be used to appeal a valid state court decree.

Aubuchon v. State · filed 1980-03-31

It is firmly established that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should not be utilized to appeal a valid state court decree. ... It is clear' that the State of Missouri is not a “person” within the meaning of that term as used in 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a surety that was not alleged to have acted under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of federal rights.

William Kyle Livingston, Jr. v. Western Surety Company · filed 1980-06-23

The complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. This was not a pendent state claim asserted in a § 1983 suit against a state officer. The sole defendant is the surety. It was not alleged that the surety, acting under color of state law, in any way subjected Livingston “to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. No authority is shown to us permitting a suit such as this under § 1983, and we find none.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on an official for constitutional violations he neither committed nor authorized.

Gonzalez v. Leonard · filed 1980-08-28

The absence of any link between Commissioner Leonard and the acts which allegedly violated the plaintiffs’ rights entitles Leonard to summary judgment, for he cannot be held accountable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for anything which he neither did nor authorized.

Section 1983 liability generally reaches state officers or persons acting under color of state law, while federal officers may be sued under it for joint conspiracy or participation with state officials if the complaint alleges specific overt acts.

Nation v. United States Government · filed 1981-03-25

Similarly, no claim is stated against the federal government or the federal officer, Hall (either in an individual or official capacity), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The liability provided in Section 1983 may be asserted only against state officers or persons acting under color of state law. ... Although federal officers may be subjected to Section 1983 liability under a theory of joint conspiracy or participation with state officials in the deprivation of rights, a plaintiff pursuing such theory is (for purposes of a motion to dismiss): ... bound to do more than merely state vague and conclusory allegations respecting the existence of a conspiracy. It [is] incumbent upon him to allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in which were reasonably related to the promotion of the claimed conspiracy. ... In the present case, the unamended Complaint is not sufficiently specific with respect to the conduct of the Defendant Hall to state a “participation” claim against him under Section 1983.

Section 1983 imposes liability only when the defendant is directly personally responsible for the claimed deprivation of a constitutional right.

Hendrix v. Faulkner · filed 1981-10-21

A defendant’s direct personal responsibility for the claimed deprivation of a constitutional right must be established in order for liability to arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.