42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Widmer v. Moore · filed 2001-01-10

To recover under § 1983, Wid-mer was required to allege that (1) he was deprived of a constitutional right, and (2) the persons depriving him were acting under color of state law.

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

Sharpe v. Medical Malpractice Insurance · filed 2001-01-12

In any event, Sharpe’s complaint fails to allege that he was deprived of a constitutional right by a party acting under color of state law, a necessary element of such a claim.

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

LaFlame v. Montgomery County Sheriff's Department · filed 2001-01-31

To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States: and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person while acting under color of state law.

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

McCloud v. Jackson · filed 2001-02-02

The District Court properly dismissed Mr. McCloud’s § 1983 claim against Jackson. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) which has taken place under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to connect each defendant to a deprivation of federal rights and show that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Burt v. Jones · filed 2001-04-09

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) ... the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) ... this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... However, in the supplemental complaint, plaintiff made no allegations against A, B, C Insurance Company for Medical Correctional Services. Consequently, plaintiff has failed to establish that he suffered a deprivation of a constitutional or a federal right by this defendant and that this defendant acts under color of state law.

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

Risen v. Cucharas Sanitation & Water District · filed 2001-04-26

In order to state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant acted under color of state law; and (2) the defendant's conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the federal constitution or federal laws.

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

El-Bey v. City of New York · filed 2001-05-16

It is well established that to prevail on such a claim plaintiff must “allege conduct under color of state law that deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

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

Lewis v. Turner · filed 2001-06-07

To state a viable § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States, and 2) the deprivation was caused by a person while acting under color of state law.

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

Van Riper v. Oedekoven · filed 2001-06-20

The elements required to establish a claim for relief pursuant to § 1983 are: "(1) that the conduct complained of was engaged in under color of state law, and (2) that such conduct subjected the plaintiffs to a deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

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

Scheiner v. New York City Health and Hospitals · filed 2001-07-24

In order to prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must satisfy two elements: “First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.” ... In this case, there is no dispute that the alleged actions by the defendants arose under color of state law.

A Section 1983 claimant must prove that the defendants acted under color of state law and that their actions deprived the claimant of a federal statutory or constitutional right.

Sampson v. City of Schenectady · filed 2001-08-16

To succeed on a section 1983 claim, Plaintiff must prove two essential elements: (1) defendants Siler and Barnett acted under color of state law; and (2) as a result of their actions, Plaintiff suffered a denial of his federal statutory or constitutional rights or privileges.

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

Lyles v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD · filed 2001-09-04

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant, while acting under color of state law, violated a federal right.

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

Becker v. Ohio State Legal Services Ass'n · filed 2001-09-14

To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that someone acting under color of state law deprived them of a federal right.

Brown v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections · filed 2001-11-28

To state a claim under § 1983, however, Mr. Brown needed to allege that someone acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal right.

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

Macone v. Wakefield, Town of · filed 2002-01-10

To bring a successful section 1983 action, appellants must establish two elements: (1) the conduct complained of was carried out under color of state law and (2) this conduct deprived appellants of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... There is no question that the first requirement is met here, so we proceed to the second element for each of appellants' claims.

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

Upsher v. Grosse Pointe Public School System · filed 2002-04-04

Consequently, to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs must produce evidence that: (1) they were deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal Constitution or law of the United States, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person while acting under the color of state law.

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

Rush v. Wilder · filed 2002-05-24

In order to state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts establishing conduct by a person acting under color of state law which deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

Allen v. Mahoney · filed 2002-06-18

In order to state a sustainable § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege facts to establish: (1) a violation of rights protected by the United States Constitution or created by federal statute, (2) proximately caused (3) by conduct of a “person” (4) acting under color of state law.

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

McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs · filed 2002-07-12

One seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must satisfy the following two requirements: (1) Some person must deprive the plaintiff of a federal right; and (2) that person must have acted under color of state or territorial law.

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

Dixon v. Kirby · filed 2002-07-16

To prevail upon his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must prove (1) that a person acting under color of State law (2) committed an act which deprived him of an alleged right, privilege or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

Summum v. City Of Ogden · filed 2002-07-19

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Summum must establish "(1) a violation of rights protected by the federal Constitution or created by federal statute or regulation, (2) proximately caused (3) by the conduct of a `person' (4) who acted under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom[,] or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia."

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

Lorenzi v. Lorenzi · filed 2002-08-07

To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) she was deprived of a right secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person while acting under color of state law.

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

Verdow v. Sutkowy · filed 2002-09-11

In order to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs must plead and prove two elements: (1) that defendants acted “under color of law,” and (2) that defendants’ conduct deprived plaintiffs of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. ... The first element is clearly satisfied — defendants, acting as heads of their respective agencies, manage the administration of Medicaid benefits in accordance with federal law.

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

TERPENING v. Irving · filed 2002-09-25

In order to maintain a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a would-be plaintiff must show “that the conduct complained of (1) ‘was committed by a person acting under color of state law’ and (2) ‘deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.’ ” ... Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient coherent facts to establish either element.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right and show that a person acting under color of state law caused the deprivation.

Hunter v. Sherman · filed 2002-11-01

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove a deprivation of federally protected rights by defendants acting under color of state law.

Hadley v. Snyder - Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing - replaces opinion filed 10/11/02 · filed 2002-11-27

To prevail in a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendants' actions deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) the defendants acted under color of state law.

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

Sanders v. Kingston · filed 2002-12-20

In order to state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and violated the plaintiff’s federal rights.

Lockridge v. Board Of Trustees, Of The University Of Arkansas · filed 2003-01-14

His claims against Dr. Jones are brought pursuant to § 1983, which requires that Mr. Lockridge show that Dr. Jones was acting under color of state law and violated Mr. Lockridge's federal rights.

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

At & T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad · filed 2003-02-03

To prevail on a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant acted under the color of law in committing the conduct at issue and (2) such conduct deprived plaintiff of some right, privilege or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

Postal Community Credit Union v. Curry · filed 2003-02-13

The Credit Union also seeks injunctive and other relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. To recover on those aspects of its complaint, the Credit Union must show: (1) that the Commissioner was acting under color of state law — and he was; and (2) that his conduct deprived the Credit Union of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires allegations that official action deprived the plaintiff of constitutional rights and caused injury.

Gavlak v. Town of Somers · filed 2003-06-13

To state a claim under section 1983, the plaintiffs “must allege facts indicating that some official action has caused [them] to be deprived of [their] constitutional rights” and that such deprivation of rights has caused them to suffer injury.

A Section 1983 claim requires a federal constitutional basis and an assertion that state remedies are inadequate.

Anhalt v. Cities & Villages Mutual Insurance · filed 2001-10-24

Finally, the residents claim a violation of federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim under this section has two components: a federal constitutional basis and an assertion of an inadequate state remedy.

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

Carter v. Tucker · filed 2003-07-01

In order to state a viable claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the deprivation was caused by a person while acting under color of state law.

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

Cleveland v. City of Detroit · filed 2003-07-10

In order to make out a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) caused by the defendant while acting under color of state law (3) occurring without due process of law.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law; without those elements, the claim cannot support federal jurisdiction.

Olsen v. Aebersold · filed 2003-07-11

Here, although plaintiffs purported to bring a claim under § 1983, they did not identify a federal right that defendants invaded, nor did they allege facts showing that defendants acted under color of state law. Based on the plain language of the statute and Supreme Court precedent, both these elements are essential to a § 1983 claim.

A § 1983 racial discrimination claim requires action under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or a federal statute.

Johnson v. City of Memphis · filed 2003-08-04

To establish a prima facie claim of racial discrimination under § 1983, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) Defendant acted under color of state law; and (2) Defendant’s conduct deprived Plaintiffs of rights secured by the United States Constitution or a federal statute.

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

Bauer v. The State of Texas, the Presiding Judge of Probate Court Number 3 of Harris County, Texas · filed 2003-08-18

To prevail on a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that: 1) the offending conduct was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

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

Hellmann v. Gugliotti · filed 2003-08-20

To state a claim under Section 1983 against the defendants, the plaintiff must allege that the defendants, while acting under color of state law, deprived her of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Section 1983 requires action under color of law that intentionally deprives a person of a federal right; it does not require interference with a contract or property sale.

Shaikh, Shahid v. City of Chicago · filed 2003-08-25

To succeed under § 1983, Shaikh need only show that the ... City acted under color of law intentionally to deprive him of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Consti- tution or laws of the United States.”

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

Baltoski v. Pretorius · filed 2003-10-23

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must satisfy two elements; he must allege violation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and he must show a person acting under color of law committed the alleged deprivation.

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

Spurlock v. Whitley · filed 2003-10-29

To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show: 1) that he or she was deprived of a right secured by the federal Constitution or the laws of the United States, and 2) that such deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendants acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of specific constitutional rights.

Chapman v. Stricker · filed 2003-11-12

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants acted under color of state law to deprive him of specific constitutionally protected rights.

To survive summary judgment on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must raise a genuine factual dispute over whether the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federally protected right.

Dennen v. City of Duluth · filed 2003-11-25

In order to survive a motion for summary judgment under § 1983, Dennen must "raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether (1) [Peterson] acted under color of state law, and (2) the alleged wrongful conduct deprived [Dennen] of a constitutionally protected federal right." Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 328 F.3d 427, 432 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Peterson was acting under color of state law.

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

Sutherland v. Michigan Department of Treasury · filed 2003-11-25

To state a claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a person, (2) acting under color of state law, (8) deprived him of a federal right.

Section 1983 requires a claim based on a federal right and an allegation that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Paul v. State · filed 2003-12-16

At no point in his complaint does he ever allege either of the prerequisites to section 1983 liability. He neither asserts a claim based on the United States Constitution or upon federal law, nor does he aver that Dr. Somers was acting “under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a prima facie showing that a state actor violated a constitutional right.

Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure · filed 2003-12-18

Because the undersigned has concluded that no constitutional rights have been violated, monetary damages are not at issue as to those claims. A party may not state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without making a prima facie showing of a violation of a constitutional right by a state actor.

A section 1983 sexual harassment claim requires evidence that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Hayut v. State University of New York · filed 2003-12-18

In order to survive a summary judgment motion on her section 1983 claim for sexual harassment, Hayut must proffer evidence that (1) Young was acting “under color of state law” at the time he committed the conduct complained of, and (2) that his conduct deprived her of “ ‘rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.’ ” Greenwich Citizens Comm., Inc. v. Counties of Warren & Washington Indus. Dev. Agency, 77 F.3d 26, 29-30 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981)).

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

Pilon v. Saginaw Valley State University · filed 2003-12-22

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must establish that a person acting under color of state law deprived her of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 does not require proof that the defendant violated a penal statute or committed fraud.

Brewer v. Village of Old Field · filed 2004-03-31

... but the plaintiffs can sustain a cause of action for a Section 1983 violation without finding that the Village violated penal statutes or committed acts of fraud.

Section 1983 requires allegations of both a constitutional rights violation and state action to state a claim.

Brown v. Sudduth · filed 2004-04-05

Brown has adequately alleged both the denial of a constitutional right and state action.

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

Nash v. McGinnis · filed 2004-04-19

In order to state a claim under § 1983, plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) that such conduct deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

Doe v. Perry Community School District · filed 2004-04-29

To ultimately succeed under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the conduct complained of was “committed by a person acting under color of state law,” and that such conduct deprived Plaintiff of “a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

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

Chasan v. Village Dist. of Eastman · filed 1983-09-28

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

Section 1983 lets a plaintiff sue a person acting under color of state law who deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Eugster v. City of Spokane · filed 2004-05-27

Next, a plaintiff asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must establish that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to identify a constitutional right that was violated by a person acting under color of law.

Straub v. Kilgore · filed 2004-05-27

To successfully maintain a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must identify a right secured by the U.S. Constitution and a deprivation of that right by a person acting under color of law.

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

Laubach v. Roberts · filed 2004-05-28

In order to establish a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a person acting under color of state law performed some conduct which deprived the plaintiff of a right guaranteed by the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the challenged conduct was under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Hudson v. Clark · filed 2004-06-02

“To state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, the plaintiff must allege that the challenged conduct (1) was attributable to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

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

Wiggins v. Buffalo Police Department · filed 2004-06-03

In order to state a claim under § 1983, plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) that such conduct deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

Hines v. Graham · filed 2004-06-08

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that an individual “acting under col- or of state law” caused the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 lets a person sue for deprivation of a constitutional or federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

A.M. v. Luzerne County Juvenile Detention Center · filed 2004-06-10

In order to maintain a § 1983 claim, "a plaintiff must show that the defendant deprived him of a right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States while acting under color of state law." Williams v. Borough of West Chester, Pa., 891 F.2d 458, 464 (3d Cir.1989).

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

Washington v. James · filed 1986-02-03

In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must allege that some person acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show state action that deprived a constitutional right and permits suits against local governing bodies for deprivations caused by an official policy, decision, or custom.

Little v. City of North Miami · filed 1986-12-09

To state a claim under this Section, “a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant’s act or omission, done under color of state law, deprived him of a right privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... Local governing bodies and local officials in their official capacities can be sued under Section 1983 when a party can establish that he or she has suffered a constitutional deprivation as a result of either “a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers” or a “governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received .formal approval through the body’s official decision making channels.”

Section 1983 requires a malicious prosecution claim to allege deprivation of a constitutional or federal right.

Fiser v. Clyde H. Bowling, Jr. · filed 1987-01-22

In order for a claim of malicious prosecution to give rise to a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, the plaintiff must allege that the institution of criminal proceedings against him deprived him of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

Pillette v. Detroit Police Department · filed 1987-06-10

The essential elements of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are that the conduct complained of (1) was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a civil remedy against a person who, under color of state law, deprives someone of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Armstrong v. Fairmont Community Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. · filed 1987-07-22

Thus, in order for the plaintiffs to prevail on their motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, plaintiffs must prove the substantive elements of a section 1983 claim. Namely, plaintiffs must prove that they were deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal laws, by a governmental entity acting under color of state law.

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

Williamson v. Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District · filed 2004-07-28

In order to state a cause of action under § 1983, the plaintiffs claim for relief must allege facts establishing that: (1) plaintiff has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) defendant acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 lets a person sue a state official who, acting under color of state law, deprives the person of a federally protected constitutional or statutory right.

Magrum v. Meinke · filed 2004-08-27

To establish a claim against a public official under § 1983, Plaintiff must prove that the conduct complained of was: (1) committed by a person acting under the color of state law; which (2) deprived him of a federally protected constitutional or statutory right.

Section 1983 allows a person to sue when someone acting under color of state law deprives them of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Gorstein v. World Savings Bank · filed 2004-08-27

To state a claim pursuant to section 1983, Appellant must allege “(1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 632—33 (9th Cir.1988).

Section 1983 provides a civil action when a person acting under color of state law deprives someone of rights secured by the Constitution.

Levine v. Clement · filed 2004-09-01

Plaintiff has established that there are no issues of material fact regarding the two elements of his section 1983 claims, namely, that Defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution and that such deprivation occurred under color of law.

Section 1983 requires a retaliation plaintiff to prove protected conduct, a sufficiently deterrent adverse action, and a causal connection between them.

Mole v. University of Massachusetts · filed 2004-09-01

For purposes of such a claim, the plaintiff must prove that “(1) the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) there is a causal connection between elements one and two — that is, the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiffs protected conduct.”

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

Cape v. Crossroads Correctional Center · filed 2004-09-21

In addition, to make out a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant is acting under the color of state law and that plaintiff has been deprived of his rights as secured by the federal constitution and federal statutes.

Section 1983 requires conduct by a person acting under color of state law that deprives someone of a federal right.

Jones v. Edguardo A. Consuegra's Estate · filed 2004-09-22

In any 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action, the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements to a section 1983 action are present. A successful section 1983 action requires a showing that the conduct complained of (1) was committed by a person acting under color of state law and (2) deprived the complainant of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

Leocata v. Wilson-Coker · filed 2004-11-03

A plaintiff seeking relief under section 1983 must satisfy a two-part test: First, she must allege facts demonstrating that the defendant is a person acting under color of state law. Second, she must allege facts demonstrating that she has been deprived of a constitutionally or federally protected right.

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

Thompson v. Riveland · filed 1986-01-16

In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff need only allege that (1) some person deprived him of a federal right and (2) this person acted under color of state law.

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

McCormick v. City of Lawrence · filed 2005-01-21

To state a valid claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, McCormick would be required to allege two essential elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law and (2) that this conduct deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law.

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

Jenner v. Stommel · filed 2005-02-17

In a civil rights action such as this, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: that the complained-of conduct (1) was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Jenner v. McDaniel · filed 2005-02-17

In a civil rights action such as this, a plaintiff ... must allege two essential elements: that the eomplained-of conduct (1) was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires proof that the challenged conduct was under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right, with a causal connection to each defendant’s own actions.

López-Sánchez v. Vergara-Agostini · filed 2005-02-23

For a claim to be actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sufficient evidence must be presented showing that the action complained of was committed under color of state law and that said conduct worked a denial of rights secured by the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 allows a person to sue for a constitutional or federal law violation committed by someone acting under color of state law.

Jenkins v. De La Paz · filed 2005-02-28

To establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must satisfy a two-pronged test: (1) the allegat ion raised in the complaint would, if true, constitute a violation of the United States Constitution or federal law, and (2) the individual being accused was acting under color of state law.

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

Cruz-Baez v. Negron-Irizarry · filed 2005-03-08

To prevail in a § 1983 claim, plaintiffs have to demonstrate defendants deprived them of their federal constitutional rights, privileges or immunities, while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a state actor took action violating the plaintiff's federal statutory or constitutional rights.

Forest Park II v. Hadley · filed 2005-05-24

To enter judgment on a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a state actor took action that violated the plaintiff's rights under federal law or the Constitution.

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

Schroeder v. City of Vassar · filed 2005-05-25

The plaintiffs claims that the defendants violated his First Amendment rights are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under which the plaintiff must prove (1) that there was a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under of color of state law.

Section 1983 allows a person to sue for deprivation of federal rights by someone acting under color of state law and provides qualified immunity for officials whose conduct does not violate clearly established rights.

Tuchman v. State · filed 2005-06-24

Section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code provides in relevant part: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .” The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed that “[t]o state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”

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

Chatman v. Allegheny County · filed 2005-06-28

After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the District Court that Chatman has pled insufficient facts to state a claim that (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under the color of state law, or (2) that the conduct complained of deprived Chatman of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the law or the Constitution of the United States.

A § 1983 plaintiff must show deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law; to survive summary judgment, the plaintiff must show a genuine issue of material fact on both elements.

Burcham v. Wilt · filed 2005-07-11

Accordingly, to survive summary judgment in this § 1983 action, the Fox Hole Operators must demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to “two elements.” Ellison v. Garbarino, 48 F.3d 192, 194 (6th Cir. 1995). First, the Fox Hole Operators must demonstrate a genuine issue of fact as to “the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). Second, they must show that “the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant acted under color of law, violated a federal right, and caused the claimed injury.

Mayer v. Gottheiner · filed 2005-08-10

To establish liability under Section 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants, acting under color of law, violated the plaintiffs federal constitutional or statutory rights, and thereby caused the complained of injury.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for redress against a person acting under color of state law who deprives someone of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Sheppard v. Aloisi · filed 2005-08-11

“A claim under section 1983 has two essential elements. First, the challenged conduct must be attributable to a person acting under color of state law [and] second, the conduct must have worked a denial of rights secured by the Constitution or by federal law.”

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

Harbin-Bey v. Rutter · filed 2005-08-18

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the deprivation of that right was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law and requires those two showings.

MICH. ENVIRON. RESOURCES ASSOC. v. MacOmb County · filed 1987-09-18

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code is a jurisdictional statute that allows a cause of action for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States by any person acting "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory." To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show two things: 1) that the defendant acted under color of state law, and 2) that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, either statutory or constitutional.

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

Johnson v. William Mahoney, Daniel Keeler, the City of Boston and Paul F. Evans · filed 2005-09-20

To establish a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the challenged conduct was attributable to a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of rights secured by the Constitution or federal laws and requires deprivation by a person acting under color of state law.

Whitton v. City of Houston · filed 1987-11-09

It is well established that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not itself create substantive rights; it merely provides a remedy for federal rights established elsewhere. ... To sustain an action based on Section 1983, Plaintiff must establish two elements: (1) that Defendants deprived her of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that the Defendants were persons acting under color of state law, custom, or usage.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federal right under color of state law, and a due process notice claim requires deliberate or reckless conduct; negligence is insufficient.

Buntin v. City of New York · filed 2005-10-26

To recover for violation of constitutional rights under Section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant deprived him of a right “secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States” and (2) that the defendant did so “under color of state law.” Where, as here, the claim is based on a deprivation of notice in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate also that the defendant acted deliberately or recklessly in failing to provide notice. A deprivation that is merely negligent is not sufficient.

Section 1983 provides a procedural mechanism for enforcing constitutional or statutory rights and does not itself create substantive rights.

Rivera-Quinones v. Rivera-Gonzalez · filed 2005-10-28

Section 1983 does not create substantive rights but is rather a procedural mechanism for enforcing constitutional or statutory rights.

Section 1983 provides a civil action against a person who, under color of state law, deprives someone of a constitutional right.

Lund v. Hennepin County · filed 2005-11-04

Section 1983 imposes civil liability on any person who, "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State," deprives an individual of "any rights, privileges, or immunities" secured by the United States Constitution. To survive summary judgment, a claim under § 1983 must raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether 1) the defendant acted under color of state law, and 2) the alleged wrongful conduct deprived plaintiff of a constitutionally protected right.

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

Pepper, Charise v. Village of Oak Park · filed 2005-11-30

To recover under § 1983, Pepper must prove that Donaire deprived her of a federal right while acting under color of state law.

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

Shorter v. Lawson · filed 2005-12-05

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege violation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that a person acting under color of state law committed the alleged deprivation.

Section 1983 allows a person to sue for deprivation of rights under color of state law.

Lockhart-Bembery v. Town of Wayland Police Department · filed 2005-12-07

To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that the defendants: 1) acted “under color of state law” and 2) deprived her of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a civil rights complaint to allege deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution.

Awala v. People Who Want to Restrict Our First Amendment Rights · filed 2005-12-08

To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a complaint must sufficiently allege a deprivation of a right secured by the constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove a constitutional violation committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Joiner v. Fulton County, Georgia · filed 2005-12-22

To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove (1) a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a state actor deprived them of a federally secured right.

Mosely, Lillian L. v. Educ · filed 2006-01-04

Mosely’s § 1983 claim requires her to allege that a state actor deprived her of a federally-secured right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a state actor deprived her of a federally secured right.

Mosely v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago · filed 2006-01-04

Mosely’s § 1983 claim requires her to allege that a state actor deprived her of a federally-secured right.

Section 1983 liability requires action under color of state law, deprivation of a constitutional right, and proximate causation.

Volk v. Coler · filed 1988-05-02

Liability under Sec. 1983 requires proof that "(1) defendants acted under color of state law, (2) defendants' actions deprived plaintiff of her rights, privileges or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution, and (3) defendants' conduct proximately caused plaintiff's deprivation." Webb, supra, at 828 (citations omitted).

Section 1983 requires a damages claimant to prove that the defendants acted under color of state law and deprived the claimant of constitutional rights.

Swany v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District · filed 1989-06-28

Therefore, in order to claim damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a party must prove that: (1) defendants acted under color of state law; and (2) this conduct deprived the plaintiff of his constitutional rights.

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

Creason v. City Of Washington · filed 2006-02-01

To survive dismissal of their section 1983 cause of action, the Creasons must have sufficiently alleged the City deprived them of a right "secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States, and the deprivation was caused by a person or persons acting under color of state law.

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

Wall v. Dauphin County · filed 2006-02-15

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish that some person has deprived him of a federal right, and that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.

For a constitutional claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must prove a deprivation of a constitutional right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Shimkus v. Hickner · filed 2006-02-28

Plaintiff Shimkus’s claims that the defendants violated his constitutional rights are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under which the plaintiff must prove (1) that there was a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under of color of state law.

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

Martyr v. Mazur-Hart · filed 1992-04-13

In order to prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Martyr must demonstrate 1) that the conduct of defendants was under color of the laws of the State of Oregon; and 2) that defendants deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that defendants acted under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, and caused injury.

Schreiber, Jeffrey v. Buncich, John · filed 2006-03-09

To prevail under § 1983, Schreiber must establish that the defendants were acting under color of state law when they deprived him of a right under the Constitution or federal law, Case v. Milewski, 327 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2003), and that he was injured as a result of their actions, see Doe, 110 F.3d at 523.

Section 1983 provides a civil action against a person acting under color of state law who deprives someone of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Felton v. Lincoln · filed 2006-03-17

“A claim under section 1983 has two essential elements. First, the challenged conduct must be attributable to a person acting under color of state law” and “second, the conduct must have worked a denial of rights secured by the Constitution or by federal law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived them of a constitutional or other federally protected right.

Leeds v. City of Muldraugh · filed 2006-03-24

Plaintiffs seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must allege, at a minimum, that a person, under color of state law, deprived them of a constitutional or other federally protected right.

Section 1983 provides relief when a person acting under color of state law deprives someone of a federal constitutional right.

Harper v. Public Service Com'n of WV · filed 2006-04-11

Because Plaintiffs have established that the PSC, while acting under color of State law, deprived them of a right secured by the Constitution, they are entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

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

State Ex Rel. Jacob v. Bohn · filed 2006-04-14

In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts establishing conduct by a person acting under color of state law which deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law that deprives a plaintiff of a constitutional right.

Orr v. Trinter · filed 1971-06-16

To prove a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) action taken under color of State law, and (2) a deprivation of a constitutional right as a result of that action. ... We think it is clear, however, that the failure to rehire plaintiff undoubtedly was under color of State law.

Section 1983 requires state action, deprivation of a constitutional right, and a causal connection between them.

Dubay v. Wells · filed 2006-07-17

Dubay brings his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which necessarily requires proof of (1) state action; (2) a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution; and (3) a causal connection between the two.

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action when a person acting under color of state law deprives someone of a federal right.

Dinardo v. Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge · filed 2006-07-18

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for a plaintiff alleging that: (1) an act or omission deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the act or omission was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

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

Bourgeois v. Strawn · filed 2006-08-31

To prevail on his section 1983 claim, the plaintiff “must establish that a person acting under color of state law deprived [him] of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

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

Murray v. Edwards County Sheriff's Department · filed 2006-09-26

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege that he suffered the deprivation of a right secured by the constitution or laws of the United States and that the defendant, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a right secured by federal law while the defendant acts under color of state law.

Lindsey v. Thompson · filed 2006-10-23

Furthermore, the amended complaint fails to state any actionable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such a claim requires a showing that the Defendants “deprived [the Plaintiff] of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States while ... acting under color of state law.”

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

Sibley v. Levy · filed 2006-10-23

In order to prevail in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a federal right by a person acting “under color of state law.”

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

Estiverne v. Times-Picayune LLC · filed 2006-10-27

As is made clear in the opinion of the district court, however, Estiverne’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must allege both the deprivation of “a right or interest secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States ... [and] that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.”

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

Green v. Maroules · filed 2006-11-07

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must aver that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States.

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

Golden Years Homestead, Inc. v. Buckland · filed 2006-12-11

For Golden Years to prevail on its federal constitutional claims against the ISDH ... Defendants, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it must establish that the conduct it complains of was committed by a person acting under color of state law and that the activity deprived it of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

Balaguer-Santiago v. Echegoyen · filed 2007-02-12

To briefly recap the standards for establishing liability under § 1983, "plaintiffs must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the challenged conduct was attributable to a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

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

Tipler v. Douglas County, Nebraska Robert Houston, Director of Douglas County Corrections · filed 2007-04-12

To establish a violation of § 1983, the plaintiff must show the deprivation was (1) a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) caused by a person or persons acting under the color of state law.

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

Stukes v. Knowles · filed 2007-06-27

If Stukes’s complaint is viewed as alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must show that the defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.

Madden v. VT Supreme Court · filed 2007-06-27

To succeed on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that a defendant, acting under the color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.

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

Helms v. Zubaty · filed 2007-07-19

In order to prevail on her § 1983 claim, Helms must prove that she was (1) deprived of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) by a person acting under color of state law.

A § 1983 claim requires an allegation that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right while acting under color of state law.

O'Guinn v. McDaniel · filed 2007-09-05

Notably, O’Guinn’s complaint does not allege that Defendants deprived him of a constitutional right while acting “under color” of state law, a necessary element of a § 1983 claim.

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

Banks v. York · filed 2007-09-17

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to show that the conduct of which plaintiff complains (1) was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a claimant to show that a defendant acting under color of state law deprived the claimant of a constitutional or federal right.

Nurre v. Whitehead · filed 2007-09-20

A § 1983 claimant must prove “two essential elements: 1) that the Defendants acted under color of state law; and 2) that the Defendants caused [plaintiff] to be deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.”

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

Anspach v. City of Philadelphia, Department of Public Health · filed 2007-09-21

To state a cause of action under § 1983, Plaintiffs must allege the deprivation of a constitutional right under color of state law.

Section 1983 allows recovery when a defendant deprives a person of a constitutional or federal statutory right under color of state law.

Sutton v. Tompkins County · filed 2007-09-25

Recovery under section 1983 “is premised upon a showing, first, that the defendant has denied the plaintiff a constitutional or federal statutory right and, second, that such denial was effected under color of state law.”

Section 1983 provides a claim when a person acting under color of state law violates the Constitution or federal law.

Platte v. Township · filed 2007-09-26

Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under which the plaintiffs bring their federal claims, is predicated on a violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States perpetrated by someone acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides a remedy when a person acting under color of state law deprives someone of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

ESTATE OF STEPHEN PUZA v. Carbon County · filed 2007-09-26

To establish a claim under section 1983, two criteria must be met. First, the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under of color of state law. Second, the conduct must deprive the complainant of rights secured under the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 permits a person to sue when someone acting under color of state law deprives the person of federal constitutional or statutory rights.

Murray v. Prison Health Services · filed 2007-10-02

To state a claim under § 1983, Murray must show that, while acting under color of state law, Defendants deprived him of federal constitutional or statutory rights.

Section 1983 requires proof that a person acting under color of state law deprived the claimant of a federally protected right.

Amarir v. Hill · filed 2007-10-31

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for constitutional or federal rights violations committed under color of state law.

Jenkins v. DeKalb County, Ga. · filed 2007-11-16

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for persons whose rights under the federal constitution have been violated under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute confers no substantive rights itself. Rather, it provides “a method of vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). To establish a section 1983 violation, the plaintiff must show (1) conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law (2) that deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981).

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against state actors who deprive a person of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Signorile v. City of Perth Amboy · filed 2007-11-20

Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights, but provides a cause of action against state actors for a violation of rights created by the United States Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 requires a constitutional rights violation under color of state law that causes injury.

BATISTA-RIVERA v. Gonzalez · filed 2007-11-28

The jury in the instant case found that Batista proved the essential elements of his claims under Section 1983 against said co-defendant, namely, that Martinez violated Batista’s constitutional rights under color of state law and that Martinez’s actions were the proximate cause of the damages suffered by Batista.

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

Marvin v. City of Taylor · filed 2007-12-04

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth facts that, when construed favorably, establish (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) caused by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a constitutional right by a state actor; it does not separately require a denial of due process.

Ziegler v. Aukerman · filed 2008-01-14

To prevail on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff need only show that he or she was deprived of a constitutional right by a state actor. There is no additional requirement that Plaintiff show that the deprivation occurred without due process of law.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law and caused the deprivation of a right secured by federal law.

Gagliardi v. Sullivan · filed 2008-01-18

A claim under § 1983 has two "essential elements": the defendant must have acted under color of state law, and his or her conduct must have deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or by federal law. Rodríguez-Cirilo v. García, 115 F.3d 50, 52 (1st Cir. 1997). The second element requires the plaintiff to show "that the [defendant's] conduct was the cause in fact of the alleged deprivation." Id.

Section 1983 requires a political-discrimination plaintiff to show that defendants deprived her of federally protected rights while acting under color of state law.

Maymi v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority · filed 2008-01-30

In making a political discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the defendants deprived her of federally protected rights while acting under color of state law.

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

Clark v. Boscher · filed 2008-01-31

To recover under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that a deprivation of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States was carried out by persons acting under color of state law.

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

Rodriguez v. Departamento De Corrección Y Rehabilitación · filed 2008-02-11

In order to make a cognizable claim under Section 1983, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) this conduct constitutes a deprivation of a constitutional right or a federal statutory right.

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

Meenan v. Harrison · filed 2008-02-12

To establish a prima facie § 1983 case, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant deprived her of a federal right (2) while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a constitutional right was deprived under color of state law.

Buonanotte v. Noonan · filed 2008-02-14

To state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), plaintiff must show a deprivation of constitutional rights “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir.1993).

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

Koulkina v. City of New York · filed 2008-02-19

In order to state a claim under Section 1983, “a plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) that such conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a state actor deprived him of a federally protected right.

Tate v. West Norriton Township · filed 2008-03-31

To prevail on each claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Tate must demonstrate that a state actor deprived him of a federally protected right.

Section 1983 requires alleging that a person acting under color of state law deprived someone of a constitutional or federal right.

Villalpando v. Denver Health & Hospital Authority · filed 2008-04-14

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mrs. Villalpando must allege the Hospital Authority, acting under color of law, deprived Mr. Villalpando of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution” or other federal law.