42 U.S.C. § 1983

A sheriff’s office and jail are not “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Dowdy v. Shelby County Sheriff's Office · filed 2019-08-21

The SCSO and Jail are not “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to be a person; a prison mail room is not a person under the section.

Whitaker v. CRCC Mail Room · filed 2019-08-22

The “CRCC mail room” is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.

A municipal court is not a legal entity capable of being sued under § 1983.

Taylor v. Springboro Mayor's Court · filed 2019-08-23

On the same day, Judge Litkovitz entered a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as the sole named defendant, the Springboro Municipal Court is not a legal entity capable of being sued in a § 1983 action. ... Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that the Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 4, 20) should be and are hereby ADOPTED in their entirety.

Section 1983 permits suits against persons, including political and corporate bodies; claims against county departments that lack separate capacity to be sued are treated as claims against the county.

Wolverton v. Hardin Memorial Hospital · filed 2019-08-27

Neither the Hardin Memorial Hospital1 nor the Hardin County Sheriff’s Department is an entity capable of being sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a correctional facility because the facility is not a suable entity.

Wyatt v. Fox · filed 2019-08-29

It is not a suable entity. ... Therefore, he cannot state a claim against the Miami Correctional Facility.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a correctional facility that is merely a building, rather than an individual or a policymaking unit of government.

Taylor v. Sheriff · filed 2019-08-29

The Westville Correctional Facility is where the alleged events occurred, but it is a building, not an individual or a policymaking unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a county jail because it is a building, not an individual or a policymaking unit of government.

Williams v. Marshall County Jail · filed 2019-08-30

Though the Marshall County Jail is where these events occurred, the jail is a building, not an individual or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit against a person acting under color of state law; a state police barracks and a state’s attorney’s office are not persons subject to suit.

Monk v. Maryland State Police NE Barracks · filed 2019-09-04

As “Maryland State Police NE Barracks” and Cecil County State’s Attorney’s Office each correctly note, neither is a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to be a person; New York state agencies do not qualify.

Crabbe v. Manhattan Mini Storage · filed 2019-09-09

The Court also dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against NYSDOH and NYSOAG because those defendants are not considered “persons,” as is required for § 1983 liability.

Section 1983 does not allow suits against municipal agencies and departments that are not separate legal entities.

McCallum, Shasta v. Dewey, Shannon · filed 2019-09-12

Rock County Corporation Counsel, Rock County Sheriff Department, Janesville Police Department, Rock County Child Protective Services and the Janesville School District are not “persons” that may be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a jail because the jail is a building, not a suable entity.

Burford, Dionte v. Mahoney, David J. · filed 2019-09-12

The “Dane County Jail” is not a suable entity for purposes of § 1983 since a jail is a building and cannot be sued because it cannot accept service of the complaint.

State courts are not “persons” who may be sued under Section 1983.

Zeleny v. Bryant · filed 2019-09-12

The Carter County District Court, however, must be dismissed, because it is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: ... ACCORDINGLY, Defendant District Court of the 20th Judicial District of the State of Oklahoma sitting in and for Carter County is DISMISSED from this action.

State agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

(PC)Johnson v. CDCR · filed 2019-09-13

State agencies are also not persons within the meaning of § 1983. ... For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against defendants CDCR and HDSP are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state because a state is not a person under the statute.

Patton v. State of Tennessee · filed 2019-09-13

Moreover, a state is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against the Ohio Turnpike Commission or Ohio State Highway Patrol because they are not persons under the statute.

Ahmed v. Ohio State Highway Patrol · filed 2019-09-16

As such, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman Jr. is hereby ADOPTED subject to the aforementioned correction to the sentence on page 7 for clarity that the Commission and the Highway Patrol are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 authorizes suits against persons, but a state and its officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to suits for money damages.

Koontz v. Kimberley · filed 2019-09-17

Further, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only authorizes suits against persons. The Supreme Court made it abundantly clear in Will v. Michigan Department of Police that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” who are subject to suit for money damages under Section 1983.

A sheriff's department that is a county department is not an entity that can be sued under § 1983.

Kelley v. Franklin County Sheriff's Dept. · filed 2019-09-17

The Sheriff's Department is a municipal department of Franklin County, and is not itself an entity that can be sued under § 1983.

A correctional institution that is not a legal entity capable of being sued cannot be a defendant under Section 1983.

Kennedy v. Richland Correctional Inst./State of Ohio · filed 2019-09-17

The Richland Correctional Institution is not a legal entity capable of being sued under § 1983, and the plaintiff has not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that a county policy caused the violation of his rights.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against a state agency or a state official acting in an official capacity because neither is a person under the statute.

Palta v. Marshall County Indiana Sheriff's Department · filed 2019-09-18

Therefore, the Indiana State Police cannot be sued for money damages under § 1983, and the § 1983 claims are dismissed with prejudice. In addition, any official capacity claims against Trooper Strong under § 1983 are likewise dismissed with prejudice because state officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” who can be sued for money damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a prison building because it is neither an individual nor a policy-making unit of government.

Whitfield v. Westville Correctional Facility · filed 2019-09-19

Though the Westville Correctional Facility is where these events occurred, the prison is a building, not an individual or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state department of correction because the department is not a person under the statute.

Anderson v. Phelps · filed 2019-09-23

In addition, dismissal is proper because the DOC is not a person for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 applies only to a person acting under color of state law, so a police dog cannot be sued under it.

Vette v. Montrose County Sheriffs Office · filed 2019-09-24

Section 1983 applies only to a “person” who acts under color of state law.

Section 1983 permits suit only against a person; a state is not a person under the statute.

Roth v. State of Idaho · filed 2019-09-24

Moreover, only a “person” may be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a state is not considered a “person” under that statute. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot proceed against the state of Idaho.

A police or sheriff’s department is not an entity capable of being sued under Section 1983.

Hill v. Wilkins · filed 2019-09-24

First, a police or sheriff’s department is not an entity capable of being sued under 42 U.S.C § 1983.

Section 1983 treats the Baltimore Police Department as a person subject to suit.

Lucero v. Early · filed 2019-09-25

In sum, the Court concludes that BPD is a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a governmental subunit that is not a separate suable entity.

Garcia v. Santa Fe County Adult Detention Facility · filed 2019-09-25

The Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Santa Fe County Adult Detention Facility because is not a separate suable entity.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a jail because a jail is not a “person” under the statute.

JOHNAKIN v. BERKS COUNTY JAIL SYSTEM · filed 2019-09-25

The § 1983 claim against Berks County Jail System is dismissed as frivolous because a jail is not a “person” under Section 1983.

A prison or correctional facility is not a person that can be sued under § 1983.

Kline v. SCI - DOC Muncy · filed 2019-09-25

Accordingly, SCl-Muncy is not a “person” and is not a suitable entity for a § 1983 claim.

A correctional facility is not a “person” that can be sued under § 1983.

WILLIAMS v. MERCER COUNTY CORRECTIONS CENTER · filed 2019-09-30

Particularly relevant here, prisons are also not considered “persons” under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit against persons; a county jail and its collectively named correctional and medical staff are not proper defendants.

Slayden v. Wilson County Jail · filed 2019-09-30

Likewise, the Wilson County Jail’s correctional staff and medical staff are not corporate or political entities and are therefore not subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a jail because a jail is not a person subject to suit under the section.

Hardesty v. Fay · filed 2019-10-02

In the MOSC, the Court found that Plaintiff’s claims against the SCJ are subject to dismissal because Prison and jail facilities are not proper defendants because none is a “person” subject to suit for money damages under § 1983. ... The Court dismisses the SCJ as a defendant.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a police department that is not a distinct legal entity.

Fehderau v. Omaha Police Department · filed 2019-10-02

Moreover, Plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 action against the Omaha Police Department because it is not a distinct legal entity amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against a New York City agency must be brought against the City rather than the agency.

White v. New York City Police Department (N.Y.P.D.) · filed 2019-10-04

Plaintiff’s claims against the New York City Police Department must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a jail because a jail is not a person.

Carver v. Ray · filed 2019-10-07

Further, as to the Williamson County Jail, a jail is not a “person” under § 1983.

Municipal police departments are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Johnson v. Grier · filed 2019-10-08

First, the HPD is not amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state court because the court is not a person under the statute.

Vinson v. State of Wisconsin Branch 4 Court Racine · filed 2019-10-09

But he cannot sue the Racine court because it is not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county sheriff's office or a county circuit court.

Wilcox v. Drew County Sheriff Department · filed 2019-10-09

Further, neither the Drew County Sheriff's Office nor the Drew County Circuit Court is an entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat county jails or county departments as persons that may be sued.

Gomes v. Yakima County Jail · filed 2019-10-10

Because the term “person” does not encompass municipal or county departments, see United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1239–40 (9th Cir. 2005) (Ferguson, J., concurring), the county jail, county corrections department, and various county divisions and departments, as entities of Yakima County, are not proper Defendants to this action, see Nolan v. Snohomish County, 802 P.2d 792, 796 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).

Section 1983 does not treat a state or state agency as a person subject to suit.

BRITT v. BANKS · filed 2019-10-10

To the extent that Plaintiff relies on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his claims for money damages, they would still be dismissed. Defendants State of New Jersey and Department of Children and Families are not “persons” as required by § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a suable defendant; a prison or prison department cannot be sued.

Flowers, Cornelius v. Medical Directors · filed 2019-10-11

However, plaintiff has failed to identify a suable defendant in his complaint. It appears that plaintiff would like to proceed against all of the HSU staff at both Jackson and NLCI, but “[a] prison or department in a prison cannot be sued because it cannot accept service of the complaint.”

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county correctional facility that is merely an administrative arm of the county.

Faulk v. Suffolk County Correctional Facility · filed 2019-10-11

The SCCF is an administrative arm of Suffolk County and cannot be sued.

Section 1983 permits suits only against persons; a state entity such as the Board of Regents is not subject to suit under it.

Griffin, C. v. UW System Board of Regents · filed 2019-10-16

Because the Board of Regents is a state entity not subject to suit under § 1983, plaintiff’s equal protection claims against the board must be dismissed.

Section 1983 permits suit against a person acting under color of state law; the named agency and state prison do not qualify as persons subject to suit.

Sanchez v. ICA Agency · filed 2019-10-17

Neither of the defendants Sanchez has identified qualifies as a person subject to being sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state departments of corrections because they are not persons under the statute.

Perkins v. Classification Service Dept · filed 2019-10-17

The CDCR, and departments within the CDCR, are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state prison because the prison is not a person subject to suit.

JONES v. FAYETTE · filed 2019-10-18

In addition to this Court’s determination that SCI Fayette is not considered a “person” for purposes of § 1983, we note further that SCI Fayette and its departments are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because they are essentially arms of the Commonwealth.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county sheriff’s department that is not legally separate from the county.

Brown v. Milwaukee County Sheriffs Department · filed 2019-10-21

As an initial matter, the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow suit against a correctional facility that is a building rather than an individual or policymaking government unit.

Beckworth v. Westville Correctional Facility · filed 2019-10-22

Westville Correctional Facility is a building, not an individual or even a policy- making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a State or state agency because neither is a person under the statute.

Levi v. State of Alaska · filed 2019-10-23

The district court properly dismissed Levi’s action for failure to state a claim because neither a State nor a state agency is a person for purposes of § 1983 liability and Levi failed to allege any facts showing a constitutional violation.

A building is not a legal entity capable of being sued under § 1983.

Peace v. 850 Bryant Street · filed 2019-10-23

Peace has not identified a proper defendant. The lone defendant is the Hall of Justice at 850 Bryant Street in San Francisco. That is a building and not a legal entity capable of being sued. Typically, a § 1983 claim will be brought against the individual wrongdoers, such as the persons who allegedly failed to provide adequate medical care for Peace.

A police department that is not a separate entity from the city is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

SCOTT v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2019-10-23

As we stated in our August 1, 2019 Opinion, the Philadelphia Police Department is not a separate entity from the City and is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

A municipal department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Tolson v. Daviess County Detention Center · filed 2019-10-24

As a municipal department, DCDC is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a police department as a suable person; a claim against it is construed as a claim against the municipality.

Matthews v. LMPD · filed 2019-10-25

LMPD is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 because municipal departments, such as police departments, are not suable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state prison because the prison is not a person under the statute.

Whitehead v. Shawnee Correctional Center · filed 2019-10-28

The prison is not a “person”subject toa suit for money damages under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against prison disciplinary and classification committees because they are not legal entities or persons under the statute.

Murdock v. Williams · filed 2019-10-29

As for Defendants Disciplinary Hearing Committee and FCC, these are not distinct legal entities capable of being sued, nor are they “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A jail is not a person or legal entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Washington v. McLean County Jail · filed 2019-10-29

It is settled that a jail is not a person or legal entity subject to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county correctional facility because it is not a suable person.

EDWARDS v. BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2019-10-29

Accordingly, the Bucks County Correctional Facility is not an entity susceptible to suit under § 1983.

A correctional institution is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Mauney v. Burke County Sheriff's Office · filed 2019-10-31

As to Defendant BCDCF, a correctional institution is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a jail building.

Rodgers v. Marshall County Jail · filed 2019-11-01

Though the Marshall County Jail is where these events occurred, the jail is a building, not an individual or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A jail building cannot be sued under § 1983 because it is neither an individual nor a policymaking unit of government.

Cottrell v. Marshall County Jail · filed 2019-11-01

Though the Marshall County Jail is where these events occurred, the jail is a building, not an individual or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against jail employees named collectively as a group because the group is not a person.

Taylor v. Officers At Sumner Co. Jail · filed 2019-11-01

The plaintiff lists “Officer’s at Sumner Co. Jail” as a defendant in the caption of the complaint (Doc. No. 1 at 1), but a collection of employees at a correctional facility, considered as a group, is not a “person” for the purpose of Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a municipal police department because it is not a person under the statute.

Sekerke v. City of National City · filed 2019-11-04

Departments of municipal entities are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983; therefore, a local law enforcement department (like the NCPD) is not a proper party.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a jail building because it is neither an individual nor a policy-making unit of government.

Gibbs v. Marshal County Jail · filed 2019-11-04

Though the Marshall County Jail is where these events occurred, the jail is a building, not an individual or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a sheriff’s department because it is not a person under the statute.

Fisher v. Longtin · filed 2019-11-04

However, a sheriff’s department is not a “person” that can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

County agencies and departments that are not sui juris cannot be sued under § 1983 in their own right.

Hobbs v. Colon · filed 2019-11-05

Agencies and departments of Cuyahoga County are not sui juris and cannot be sued under § 1983 in their own right.

A county jail is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Marlow v. Milwaukee County Jail · filed 2019-11-06

Milwaukee County Jail is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A jail medical department cannot be sued for constitutional rights violations under Section 1983.

Green v. Ivy · filed 2019-11-06

Finally, the Jail's “Medical Department,” as the Plaintiff names as a Defendant, is not capable of being sued for constitutional rights violations under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against publicly funded universities because they are not persons subject to suit; labor unions generally are not state actors.

Robinson v. Cleveland State Univsersity (CSU) · filed 2019-11-06

“[P]ublic-funded universities” such as CSU are not considered “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. ... Nor are labor unions generally considered state actors.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against states, state agencies, or state officials in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Goff v. Kutztown University · filed 2014-10-22

(it is well established that Section 1983 does not provide for damage claims against states, state agencies, or state officials in their official capacities because they are not considered “persons” under the statute). Accordingly, I will- dismiss Counts I, II, and III of the complaint, and the retaliation claim in Count IV insofar as it has been brought against Defendant Dillon in his official capacity.

A police department without a legal identity separate from its municipality is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Schmidt v. Petek · filed 2019-11-07

The Court finds that Defendant Erie Police Department does not exist as a separate legal entity independent of Defendant Town of Erie and is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A prison and its mental health staff are not entities capable of being sued under § 1983.

Toler v. Richland Correctional Institution · filed 2019-11-07

Neither RCI, nor RCI’s “Mental Health Staff,” is an capable of being sued for constitutional rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A correctional facility is not a person that can be sued under § 1983.

GRIFFIN v. BETANCOURT · filed 2019-11-08

Accordingly, Mr. Griffin’s claims against GWHCF must be dismissed because GWHCF “is not a legal entity susceptible to suit.”

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a police or sheriff’s department because it is not an entity capable of being sued.

Kennedy v. Hodges · filed 2019-11-08

First, a police or sheriff’s department is not an entity capable of being sued under 42 U.S.C § 1983.

A collection of correctional facility employees, considered as a group, is not a person who can be sued under Section 1983.

Holloway v. Genovese · filed 2019-11-12

Second, Plaintiff names Turney Center Maintenance as a defendant, but a collection of employees at a correctional facility, considered as a group, is not a “person” for the purpose of Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state agencies or their subdivisions because they are not persons subject to liability.

Whitley v. LeBlanc · filed 2019-11-13

State agencies are not persons that can be sued under Section 1983 because such agencies are protected by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a municipal police department; the municipality and individual officers may be sued instead.

Hunter v. Rapid City Police Department · filed 2019-11-13

Municipal police departments cannot be sued in a § 1983 action.

A New York City agency such as the Department of Correction cannot be sued under Section 1983.

Fernandez v. New York City · filed 2019-06-26

Plaintiff’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”) must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued.

Section 1983 claims cannot be brought against a New York City agency because the agency is not an entity that can be sued.

Shelborne v. The City of New York · filed 2019-08-02

Plaintiff’s claims against the NYC Department of Correction must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against Maryland county boards of education because they are state agencies, not “persons” under the statute.

Brown v. Prince George's County Board of Education · filed 2019-08-20

Courts in this District have repeatedly and consistently explained that Maryland county boards of education do not qualify as “persons” within the meaning of the statute and therefore cannot be sued under § 1983. ... Count I of the Complaint therefore fails to state a viable § 1983 claim and accordingly Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is granted and Count I is dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a police dog because a dog is not a person.

Johnson v. Lepianka · filed 2019-08-27

K-9 Bravo, on the other hand, must be dismissed. The Seventh Circuit has held that dogs are not people subject to Section 1983 suit, and Plaintiff’s recourse is to sue the dog’s owner, rather than the dog itself.

A police department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Cox v. Lang · filed 2019-11-15

However, a police department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a police department because it is not a suable entity.

Cox v. Atchison · filed 2019-11-15

However, a police department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county prosecutor in his official capacity when he performs prosecutorial functions as an arm of the State.

RICHARDSON v. ORIOLO · filed 2019-11-18

As such, AP Semper, in his official capacity, partakes of the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity and is not a “person” under § 1983.

A municipal police department is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Franco v. City of San Diego · filed 2019-11-18

First, as to Plaintiff’s four § 1983 claims, SDPD is not a “person” under § 1983.

A county sheriff’s department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Vestal v. Madison County Sheriff's Department · filed 2019-11-18

The Madison County Sheriff’s Department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to be a person personally involved in the alleged violation; a prison food service entity is not a person under the statute.

Langley v. Food Service · filed 2019-11-19

Langley does not identify any defendant who took any specific action against him; instead, Langley has named an entity that is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a state-funded university as a person subject to suit.

Kyrkanides v. University of Kentucky · filed 2019-11-19

As Defendant UK—a state-funded university—is not a “person” for § 1983 purposes, it is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and Kyrkanides’s due process claims against it fail.

Section 1983 does not allow a jail to be sued as an entity.

House v. LMDC · filed 2019-11-20

LMDC is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a county jail to be sued as a separate entity; the county is the proper defendant.

Latham v. Oshefski · filed 2019-11-20

The SCJ is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 because municipal departments, such as jails, are not suable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county sheriff’s department as an entity separate from the county.

Brown v. Doe · filed 2019-11-21

As an initial matter, the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a sheriff’s department because it is not a person subject to suit.

Barr v. St. Clair County Sheriff Department · filed 2019-11-21

The St. Clair County Sheriff Department is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a police department to be sued as a separate entity.

Cox v. Morrow · filed 2019-11-21

However, a police department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a county jail because a jail is not a person under the statute.

Robinson v. Forest County Jail · filed 2019-11-22

The jail is not a “person” under § 1983, and therefore cannot be sued.

A county jail is not a person that can be sued under § 1983.

Robinson v. Milwaukee County Jail · filed 2019-11-22

The jail is not a “person” under § 1983, and therefore cannot be sued.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a correctional center because it is not a person subject to suit.

Laster v. Doe · filed 2019-11-22

Finally, Plaintiff cannot pursue a request for money damages against Shawnee Correctional Center because it is not a “person” withinthe meaning of the Civil Rights Act, and therefore not subject to a Section 1983 lawsuitfor damages.

Section 1983 permits claims against the Baltimore Police Department because it is treated as a local entity for federal civil rights liability.

Burley v. Baltimore Police Department · filed 2019-11-22

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims may proceed against BPD.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a police or sheriff’s department because it is not an entity capable of being sued.

Hill v. Trinity Food Service · filed 2019-11-22

First, a police or sheriff’s department is not an entity capable of being sued under 42 U.S.C § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit an action against a state, and a private defendant must be a state actor or act in concert with one.

Ortiz v. State of California · filed 2019-11-25

However, they did not plead that, and could not pursue an action against the State of California under § 1983. Moreover, there is no indication that Citibank was or is a state actor or an entity acting in concert with a state actor.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a detention center because the facility is not a person acting under color of state law.

Anderson v. Sumter Lee Regional Detention Center · filed 2019-11-25

However, because Anderson cannot sue the SLRDC under § 1983, regardless of its name, as it does not act under color of state law, Anderson’s motion to amend/correct the complaint is denied.

A sheriff’s office that is not a separate legal entity cannot be sued under Section 1983.

Pinkerton v. Carroll County Court of Common Pleas · filed 2019-11-26

The Carroll County Sheriff’s Office is not a legal entity capable of being sued for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a correctional facility that is merely a building, rather than an individual or a governmental policy-making unit.

Brazier v. Miami Correctional Facility · filed 2019-11-27

Though the Miami Correctional Facility is where these events occurred, the correctional facility is a building, not an individual or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county jail because the jail is not a person subject to suit.

Parmeley v. Williamson County Jail · filed 2019-12-02

However, WCJ is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a sheriff’s department because it is not an entity capable of being sued.

Blondin v. Bedford County Sheriff's Department · filed 2019-12-02

Plaintiff presumably intends the Bedford County Sheriff’s Department to be the Defendant to this claim, but a sheriff’s department is not an entity capable of being sued under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county prosecutor’s office acting as a state agency in its law enforcement role.

MARTINEZ v. CHOE · filed 2019-12-03

A county prosecutor's office is a state agency for § 1983 purposes, and is not a person amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to be a person; naming “Medical Staff” without identifying individual staff members does not satisfy that requirement.

Chapman v. John Doe (One) · filed 2019-12-03

Only "persons" may act under the color of state law, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a "person." The use of the term, "Medical Staff" as a name for alleged defendants, without naming specific staff members, is not adequate to state a claim against a "person" as required in § 1983 actions.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against an Arizona sheriff’s office because it is not a suable person.

Walker v. Penzone · filed 2019-12-04

The sheriff’s office is simply an administrative creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties and is not a “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a prison because a prison is not a person under the statute.

Cephas v. Buckingham Correctional Center · filed 2019-12-05

The prison, however, is not a person that can be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a jail because a jail is not a person under the statute.

MILLER v. GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2019-12-05

The § 1983 claim against GWH must be dismissed because a jail is not a “person” under Section 1983.

A jail is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Ashby v. Clear · filed 2019-12-06

One of the defendants Ashby has named, the jail, does not qualify as a person subject to being sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against states, state agencies, or state officials sued in their official capacities.

Kwon v. Gastelo · filed 2019-12-10

States, state agencies, and state officials sued in their official capacities are not persons subject to civil rights claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against judges for judicial acts, guardians ad litem acting as independent advocates for children, or states sued in their own names.

Bliss v. State of Alaska · filed 2019-12-11

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for judicial acts. ... Due to this independent function as an advocate for a child’s best interests, a guardian ad litem is not a state actor for § 1983 purposes. ... A state is not a person for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state department of corrections because it is not a suable entity.

White v. Lemmenes · filed 2019-12-16

The only named defendant, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, is not a proper defendant because it is not a suable entity under § 1983.

A state department of correction is not a person that may be sued under § 1983, even if the state waives sovereign immunity.

Collins v. Brito · filed 2019-12-16

But the DOC is not a “person” within the meaning of section 1983, “and thus may not be sued pursuant to this statute regardless of whether a state has waived its sovereign immunity.” Smith v. Conn. Dep’t of Corr., 2014 WL 3824357, at *6 (D. Conn. 2014). Accordingly, I will dismiss Collins’ claims against the DOC.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county jail because the jail is a building, not an individual or policy-making unit of government.

Warren v. Marshall County Jail · filed 2019-12-17

Though the Marshall County Jail is where these events occurred, the jail is a building, not an individual or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county department that is not a separate legal entity capable of being sued.

Smith v. St. Louis County Department of Justice Services · filed 2019-12-17

With regard to the claim against the St. Louis County Department of Justice Services, plaintiff’s claim fails because it is not a juridical entity, suable as such.

A detention center that is not a legal entity is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Franklin v. Cahow · filed 2019-12-18

As an initial matter, BADC is not a legal entity and thus is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a jail because a jail is not a suable entity.

Coleman v. Ballard · filed 2019-12-19

Furthermore, the Court agrees with Judge Kearney’s finding that the Jonesboro Jail is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a correctional institution because it is not a person subject to suit.

Mobley v. Henderson County Sheriff's Department · filed 2019-12-19

As for Henderson County Detention Facility, a correctional institution is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

A Pennsylvania court prothonotary sued in her official capacity is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

BURFORD v. DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2019-12-20

The Prothonotary’s Office (and thus the Prothonotary in her official capacity) is part of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas (i.e., a part of the judicial system and therefore an “arm of the state”) and is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

State officials are not “persons” under § 1983 when sued as state actors.

Watts v. Harris · filed 2019-12-20

Here, the Report recommended granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary judgement on two grounds: (1) because Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as state actors and (2) because state officials are not “persons under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” (ECF No. 33 at 9.) ... For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22).

A jail is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Mendiola v. Shelby County Jail Medical Staff · filed 2019-12-26

The Jail itself is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state correctional center because it is not a person under the statute.

Wilson v. Wexford Health Services · filed 2019-12-30

Menard, which is a division of IDOC, is not a “person” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act and soitcannot be sued pursuant to Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a police department that is not a separate legal entity capable of being sued.

Gary v. Fort Myers Police Department · filed 2019-12-31

The motion to dismiss will be granted because the Fort Myers Police Department is not a separate legal entity capable of being sued.

Section 1983 permits claims against persons acting under color of state law; a county jail is not a proper defendant.

Wilmot v. Neosho County Jail · filed 2020-01-03

First, the Neosho County Jail is not a proper defendant in this action. Section 1983 provides a remedy for claims of federal rights by a “person” acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county jail because the jail is not a legal entity subject to suit.

Mayfield v. Clare County Jail · filed 2020-01-06

It is well-settled that county jails, sheriff departments, and other governmental agencies are not legal entities subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against the State of Nevada, the Nevada National Guard, or the named officials in their official capacities.

Fulkerson v. State of Nevada · filed 2020-01-06

Judge Cobb found that Plaintiff’s case against the State of Nevada, the Nevada National Guard, and Governor Steve Sisolak, Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve, and Sparks Mayor Ron Smith in their official capacities should be dismissed with prejudice because they may not be sued under Section 1983. ... Having reviewed the R&R and the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1), the Court agrees with Judge Cobb.

A county jail is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Esposito v. Racine County Jail · filed 2020-01-09

Plaintiff may not proceed against the Jail in this case because it is a non-suable entity under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against the Milwaukee County Jail because the jail is not a person.

Walls v. Montoya · filed 2020-01-09

Section 1983 also allows a plaintiff to sue a “person” who, acting under color of law, violates his constitutional rights. The Milwaukee County Jail is not a person.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a county jail because the jail is not a person under the statute.

Woods v. State of Oregon · filed 2020-01-09

The “Yamhill County Jail” is managed by and/or a department of Yamhill County, but it is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a jail to be sued as an entity.

Wilborn v. Criminal Justice Center · filed 2020-01-09

The Jail is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims cannot be brought against Georgia sheriff’s departments or clerk’s offices that lack legal capacity to be sued.

YASHARA'L v. DOE · filed 2020-01-13

To the contrary, courts have recognized that county detention facilities, police departments, and sheriff’s departments are not legal entities subject to suit or liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a county sheriff’s department as a separate entity.

Clark v. Madison County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-01-13

The Madison County Sheriff’s Department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims cannot be brought against the Illinois Department of Corrections or Dixon Correctional Center because they are not suable entities.

James v. Chattic · filed 2020-01-14

Third, the “Illinois State Prison” (presumably, the Illinois Department of Corrections) is not a proper party because it is not a suable entity (in other words, the type of entity that can be held liable in a § 1983 action).

A sheriff’s department is not a “person” that can be sued under § 1983; the proper defendant is the municipality.

DRAYTON v. MONMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT · filed 2020-01-14

The Court will dismiss with prejudice Monmouth County Correctional Institution Sheriff’s Department as this entity is not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against municipalities but does not treat states, state departments, or officials sued in their official capacities as persons subject to suit.

Sherman v. Mich. Dep't of Nat. Res. · filed 2020-01-15

Although a state’s municipalities are persons subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the state itself, its departments, and its officials are not.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state corrections department, state prison, or prison medical department because they are not persons subject to suit.

Hamilton v. California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation · filed 2020-01-16

The CDCR, RJD, and medical department of RJD are not “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983 and are entitled to immunity from suit for monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state corrections department or state prison because neither is a person under the statute.

Carroll v. California Department of Corrections · filed 2020-01-16

Neither the CDCR nor RJD are “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a jail because a jail is a building, not an individual or government policymaking unit.

Nash v. Saint Joseph County Jail · filed 2020-01-16

Though the St. Joseph County Jail is where these events occurred, the jail is a building, not an individual or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides no remedy against a state or its agencies because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Sacoman v. Second Judicial District Attorney · filed 2020-01-17

The State is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, therefore, there is no remedy against the State or its agencies under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit against a person who deprives another of federal rights; a correctional facility is not a person subject to suit.

Crocker v. Bedford Hills Correctional Facility · filed 2020-01-17

Section 1983 provides that an action may be maintained against a “person” who has deprived another of rights under the “Constitution and Laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim against Bedford Hills Correctional Facility must be dismissed.

Section 1983 claims may be brought only against state officials.

Benjamin v. United States of America/Congress · filed 2020-01-17

Such a claim may only be brought against state officials.

Section 1983 does not permit a county jail to be sued as an entity.

Elm v. Locked and Loaded Transport Agency · filed 2020-01-21

The Jail is not a suable entity under § 1983, and it will therefore be dismissed as a defendant.

An Indiana municipal police department cannot be sued under Section 1983 if it lacks capacity to be sued.

PAYNE v. INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2020-01-21

Any claim against the IMPD is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The IMPD is not a suable entity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state employees in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Matherne v. Louisiana State · filed 2020-01-21

To the extent Plaintiff’s claim is made against Hill in her official capacity, Hill is not considered a person for purposes of §1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant who qualifies as a “person”; a state agency does not qualify.

Rasheed v. Indiana Department of Child · filed 2020-01-22

Her immediate problem, however, is her failure to name as a defendant any “person” within the scope of §1983.

A municipal police department is not a suable entity under § 1983, so adding a claim against it would be futile.

Martin v. Noble County Sheriff's Dept · filed 2020-01-22

Judge Lee already ruled that FWPD is not a suable entity for a § 1983 claim. (Id. at 12). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint, as to FWPD, would not survive a motion for summary judgment and is therefore futile.

Section 1983 permits claims against persons; the Philadelphia Prison System is not a person under the statute.

GRAY v. LAGANA · filed 2020-01-22

However, the Philadelphia Prison System is a department of the City of Philadelphia, “not [a] legal entity,” and is therefore not a person for purposes of § 1983.

A county jail is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Hinant v. Saline County Jail · filed 2020-01-23

The Jail is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 claims cannot be brought against the New York City Police Department or its police precincts because those agencies lack capacity to be sued.

Carthen v. Gonzalez · filed 2020-01-23

The New York City Police Department and the 79th Police Precinct are not suable entities.

A state and its officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Grover v. State of Nebraska · filed 2020-01-24

Plaintiff has named the State of Nebraska as the sole Defendant in this action, but “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).