42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county correctional facility because it is not a person under the statute.

JOHNSON v. CO WHITE · filed 2020-01-24

A county correctional facility is not a “person” amenable to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a state or state officials acting in their official capacities because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Hicks v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections · filed 2020-01-27

Defendants are correct that Section 1983 does not provide a federal forum for a litigant who seeks monetary damages against either a state or its officials acting in their official capacities, specifically because these officials are not seen as “persons” within the meaning of Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a county jail department to be sued because it is not a person under the statute.

Rivera v. San Diego Central Jail · filed 2020-01-28

In addition, the SDCCJ is a department of the County of San Diego, not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Wilson v. N.R.A.D.C. · filed 2020-01-30

The NRADC, one of the defendants Wilson has named, is a jail and cannot qualify as a person to be sued under § 1983.

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

Ruckel v. Police Department · filed 2020-01-30

The police department is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a detention facility because the facility is not a suable person.

Reyes v. Corn · filed 2020-01-30

As the CDCC is not a proper Defendant, Plaintiff will not be entitled to pursue any claims against the CDCC in his amended complaint.

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

McLean v. Clark · filed 2020-01-31

Rikers Island is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a jail medical department because it is not a suable person.

Averette v. Danville City Jail Medical Dept · filed 2020-02-03

The first named defendant, the “Danville City Jail Medical Dept.,” is not an entity capable of being sued or a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

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

Lambert v. Middle River Regional Jail · filed 2020-02-03

The jail, however, is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires the members of a group to be individually identified and named when the group itself is not a suable entity.

Potter v. Galipeau · filed 2020-02-03

However, Mr. Potter may not proceed against the Westville E- Squad because it is not an individual or other suable entity but a group of individuals that must be separately identified and named as defendants.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to name persons as defendants and allege specific facts about each defendant’s involvement in the claimed deprivation.

Linkenauger v. Trinity Food Services · filed 2020-02-04

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff has until March 4, 2020 to file an Amended Complaint naming “persons” as defendants, specifically setting forth his constitutional claims, and stating specific facts as to how each defendant violated his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a detention center that is only a building and not a person or legal entity.

Popejoy v. Laurel County Detention Center · filed 2020-02-04

That is because the only defendant in this case, the Laurel County Detention Center, is simply a building and not a person or legal entity which may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state agencies or state officials acting in their official capacities because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Davis v. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish · filed 2020-02-04

And, contrary to the allegation in the amended complaint, see Doc. 33 ¶ 6, neither a state agency nor a state official acting in his or her official capacity is a “person” who can be sued under § 1983.

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

Blanding v. Montanez · filed 2020-02-04

“A park is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of section 1983.” Bowles v. State, 37 F. Supp. 2d 608, 611 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Washington Square Park for failure to state claim on which relief may be granted.

Section 1983 does not allow a suit against a correctional facility because the facility is not a suable person.

Young v. Hutchins · filed 2020-02-05

The House of Corrections cannot be sued under §1983.

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

Norton v. Western Regional Jail · filed 2020-02-05

The Western Regional Jail is not a “person” subject to liability for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county prison because the prison is not a person amenable to suit.

SCUTELLA v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON · filed 2020-02-05

The Court also recognizes that the ECP itself is not a “person” amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state corrections department or correctional center.

Dunn v. Vandalia Correctional Center · filed 2020-02-06

Count 1 also cannot proceed against IDOC or Vandalia Correctional Center because neither entity may be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a police department as an entity; claims against it must be brought against the municipality.

Ruckel v. Wood River Police Dept. · filed 2020-02-06

As an initial matter, the Wood River Police Department as an entity cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against the Department of Corrections.

Miller v. Straks · filed 2020-02-07

The Department of Corrections is not a suable entity under §1983, even if the plaintiff had named it as a defendant.

Section 1983 permits suits against persons, but a state corrections department and a state courthouse are not persons under the statute.

Lang v. Corrections · filed 2020-02-07

Neither DOC nor the Waterbury Superior Court is 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.” ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the claims against DOC and the Waterbury Superior Courthouse with prejudice.

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

Thurmond v. Hess · filed 2020-02-10

No claim is stated as to defendant Pittsfield Township Police Department because a municipal police department is not a legal entity subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county jail or sheriff’s department because neither is a person subject to suit under the statute.

Patton v. Anderson County, TN (PSLC2) · filed 2020-02-10

However, neither the County Jail nor the Sheriff’s Department is a “person” amenable to suit within the meaning of § 1983.

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

Willis v. Louisville Metro of Correction · filed 2020-02-11

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

A state is not a person who may be sued under § 1983.

Rhoades v. Moore · filed 2020-02-11

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A jail facility is not a person that can be sued for money damages under § 1983.

Hicks v. Johnson County Adult Detention Center · filed 2020-02-12

The Court also found that Plaintiff’s claim against the JCADC is 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. ... Plaintiff’s claims against the JCADC are subject to dismissal.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against the Tennessee Department of Corrections because it is not a person under the statute.

Pleasant-Bey v. State of Tennessee, Secretary of State · filed 2020-02-12

As to Plaintiff’s claim under the Free Exercise Clause, however, the court must dismiss the TDOC as a party. That is because “[t]he TDOC is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of [Section] 1983, and is therefore not a proper defendant” to the plaintiff’s Free Exercise Clause claim.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a district attorney’s office because the office is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

Crawford v. Burke County District Attorney's Office · filed 2020-02-13

First, the District Attorney’s Office is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

Novatne v. Rudd Medical · filed 2020-02-13

To begin with, the RCADC is not a proper defendant under Section 1983, which creates a cause of action against “[e]very person” who, acting under color of state law, abridges “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a county jail or its medical staff because neither is a “person” under the statute.

Melendez v. Orange County Jail · filed 2020-02-14

The Orange County Jail and the Orange County Jail Medical Staff are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

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

Rasor v. Putnam County Justice Center · filed 2020-02-14

It is well established that a jail is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

Richard, Herbert v. Department of Health Services · filed 2020-02-18

Sand Ridge and DHS are not “persons” that may be sued under § 1983.

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

Haynes v. East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-02-18

A dog is not capable of being sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit against a person, but a county house of correction is not a suable person.

Ball v. Sobek · filed 2020-02-19

Milwaukee County House of Correction is not a person, and so cannot be subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against persons acting under color of law, but a Wisconsin county jail cannot be sued as a separate defendant.

Harris v. Engel · filed 2020-02-19

The Waushara County Jail is not a person—it is not an individual subject to suit under § 1983.

A county prosecutor’s office is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Haywood v. Martynowicz · filed 2020-02-19

First, as to Defendant Monroe County District Attorney’s Office, a county prosecutor’s office is not a suable entity in a § 1983 civil action.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county jail because the jail is not an entity that can be sued.

LaFollette v. Jefferson County, MO Jail · filed 2020-02-20

Plaintiff’s claim against the Jefferson County Jail is legally frivolous because it cannot be sued.

Police departments cannot be sued under § 1983 because they lack legal identities separate from their municipalities.

Cox v. Albuquerque Police Department · filed 2020-02-21

Police departments such Albuquerque Police Department are not suable entities under § 1983, because they lack legal identities apart from the municipality.

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

JACKSON v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PRISON · filed 2020-02-21

The § 1983 claim against NCP is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous because a prison is not a “person” under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency through officials in their official capacities when the plaintiff seeks no prospective injunctive relief.

Payne v. Stacy · filed 2020-02-24

Because Payne does not seek prospective injunctive relief, the Department (through its secretary and academy trainer) cannot be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not apply to claims against federal officials.

Oliveras v. New York City · filed 2020-02-25

Although the FAC alleges corresponding claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court dismisses those claims because § 1983 is not applicable against federal officials.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state or its departments because they are not persons under the section.

PAGLIAROLI v. AHSAN · filed 2020-02-26

For the reasons explained in this Opinion, the § 1983 claims against the State of New Jersey and the NJDOC are dismissed with prejudice as these entities are not persons under § 1983.

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

Lett v. Putnam County Justice Center/Sheriffs Department · filed 2020-02-26

Plaintiff cannot sue the Putnam County Justice Center under Section 1983.

A Commonwealth’s Attorney office is not a person that can be sued under § 1983.

Reynolds v. District Attorneys Office Dickenson Co. · filed 2020-02-27

Even if Reynolds had properly named the office, however, a Commonwealth’s Attorney office is not a “person” and not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against a state department of corrections because it is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

SCOTTI v. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE · filed 2020-02-27

However, the New Jersey Department of Corrections is not a person amendable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit an action against the federal government because it is not a person under the statute.

Peck v. Dorsey · filed 2020-02-27

Furthermore, the federal government cannot be the subject of a § 1983 action because it is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

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

Reese v. Breton · filed 2020-03-02

Neither a state agency nor any subdivision thereof is considered a person within the meaning of section 1983.

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

Ferguson v. Department of Corrections · filed 2020-03-02

Finally, only a “person” may be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a state is not considered a “person” under that statute.

A county justice center is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Walters v. Caldwell · filed 2020-03-02

Also, as the Claiborne County Justice Center is not a suable entity under § 1983, it will also be DISMISSED.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a sheriff’s office or its administrative subdivision because neither is a person amenable to suit.

Caraffa v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-03-03

A 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 state agency because a state agency is not a person under the section.

MILLER v. MCCLURE · filed 2020-03-04

Defendants are correct that DOC is a state agency and, as such, is not a “person” under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a detention facility to be sued because it is not a person.

McCleary v. Yates · filed 2020-03-05

Because DCF is a detention facility, not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it lacks the capacity to be sued.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a Florida sheriff’s office because it is not a legal entity subject to suit.

Koepke v. Jacksonville Sheriff Department · filed 2020-03-06

Therefore, the Court sua sponte dismisses Defendant Duval County Sheriff’s Office from this action as it is not a legal entity subject to suit.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a regional jail or a state official in his official capacity because they are not persons who may be sued under the statute.

Rush v. Bryant · filed 2020-03-09

Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on February 18, 2020, recommending this Court find Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because SCRJ and Douglas, in his official capacity, are not persons who may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and are immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment. ... Accordingly, this Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 46), and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 36).

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

CROPPER v. LEHIGH COUNTY PRISON · filed 2020-03-09

The § 1983 claims against LCP in each of these case are dismissed as frivolous because a prison is not a “person” under Section 1983.

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

Bishop v. Anderson County Jail · filed 2020-03-09

Next, the Anderson County Jail is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against state correctional agencies because they are not persons under the statute.

Taylor v. Corcoran · filed 2020-03-10

The Maryland Division of Corrections and NBCI are both arms of the State; accordingly they are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

A county sheriff’s office that is a department of the county cannot be sued under § 1983.

Mitchell v. Nye County, Nevada · filed 2020-03-10

Plaintiffs Karl and Kayla Mitchell concede that the Sheriff’s Office is a subdivision of Nye County that cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The Nye County Sheriff’s Office is, similarly, a department of Nye County. So it, too, is not a suable entity under either federal or state law.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state mental health institute because it is an arm of the state, not a person.

Olrich v. Illichmann · filed 2020-03-11

The Mendota Mental Health Institute is not a “person,” and it is not free-standing legal entity; it is an arm of the state of Wisconsin.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a jail or detention center that lacks legal capacity to be sued separately from its county.

Olrich v. Parker · filed 2020-03-11

The court first notes that the plaintiff cannot sue the Kenosha County Jail or the Kenosha County Detention Center 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.

Williams v. ISP · filed 2020-03-11

The Indiana State Prison is where the alleged events occurred, but it is a building, not an individual or 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 municipal police department because the department is not a person under the statute.

Brown v. City of North Charleston Police Department · filed 2020-03-11

But the City of North Charleston Police Department is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a prosecutor’s office because the office is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

WILLIAMS v. TERRE HAUTE P.D. · filed 2020-03-12

Thus, the prosecutor’s office is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983, and it is also immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county jail or sheriff’s department because neither is a person under the statute.

Lane v. Anderson County, Tennessee (PSLC2) · filed 2020-03-12

However, neither the County Jail nor the Sheriff’s Department is a “person” amenable to suit within the meaning of § 1983.

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

MARTIN v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2020-03-13

Even if he did, any § 1983 claim against George W. Hill Correctional Facility must be dismissed as frivolous because a prison is not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a correctional facility that is a building rather than a suable entity.

ELLIS v. TALBOT · filed 2020-03-16

First, any claim against PCF is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is a building, not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a civil rights action against a state agency that is an arm of the state because the agency is not a person under the statute.

Holmes v. Nevada Highway Patrol · filed 2020-03-17

In addition, states, and governmental agencies that are an arm of the state, are not persons for purposes of section 1983. ... The Nevada Highway Patrol is an arm of the State, and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Therefore, Plaintiff may not maintain a civil rights action against the Nevada Highway Patrol.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against an Illinois county board that is not a separate suable entity.

Haney v. Winnebago County Board · filed 2020-03-18

Before reaching the merits, this Court notes that Defendant Board is not a suable entity.

County jails are not legal entities subject to suit under Section 1983.

Ouellette v. Vogt · filed 2020-03-18

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

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against an Ohio common pleas court because the court is not a legal entity capable of being sued.

Moore v. Lorain County Court of Common Pleas · filed 2020-03-19

Under Ohio law, the Common Pleas Court is not sui juris, meaning it is not a legal entity capable of suing or being sued. ... Because Plaintiff has not named a viable Defendant against whom this action can proceed, this case must be dismissed.

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

MERRITT v. POLINSKY · filed 2020-03-19

Additionally, SCI Grateford, a state prison, is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and is not considered to be a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

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

Cunningham v. Does · filed 2020-03-20

But neither a state nor a prison is a “person” that may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant acting under color of state law, and a police department is not a suable person under the section.

RODRIGUEZ v. WAWA INC · filed 2020-03-23

WHEREAS, Mr. Rodriguez’s claims, as they are currently pleaded, fail as a matter of law because none of the Defendants can be sued under § 1983 because, in the case of all Defendants other than the Somers Point Police Department, they are not state actors, see Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 646 (3d Cir. 2009) “[A] plaintiff seeking to hold an individual liable under § 1983 must establish that she was deprived of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a state actor.”

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a bus terminal because the terminal is not a person.

Perez v. NY Police · filed 2020-03-23

Because the Port Authority Bus Terminal is not a “person,” it does not have the capacity to be sued under §1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a correctional institution because it is not a suable entity.

Burchard v. Woods · filed 2020-03-24

Racine Correctional Institution is not a proper defendant because it is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Section 1983 generally does not allow suits against states or state officers in their official capacities because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Frickx v. Venegas · filed 2020-03-25

States and state officers sued in their official capacity are not “persons” for the purposes of a section 1983 action, and generally, they may not be sued under the statute.

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

Livingston v. Doe · filed 2020-03-25

A court is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a district attorney’s office because it is not a person under the statute.

SHAREEF v. PALKO · filed 2020-03-25

Furthermore, a district attorney’s office is not a “person” that can be sued within the meaning of § 1983.

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

Cunningham v. Fulton County Jail · filed 2020-03-26

However, he cannot proceed against the Fulton County Jail because it 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 corrections because it is not a “person” under the statute.

CARIDAD v. NORTHERN STATE PRISON OFFICERS · filed 2020-03-26

The Court, however, will dismiss with prejudice the § 1983 claims against the New Jersey Department of Corrections (“NJDOC”), as this entity is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

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

McCleve v. Arizona, State of · filed 2020-03-30

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 treats the Baltimore City Police Department as a person subject to suit because it is not an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes.

Saunders v. Baltimore City Police Dept. · filed 2020-03-30

Accordingly, BPD is a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state or its department because neither is a “person” under the statute.

Herndon 136007 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-03-30

In addition, the State of Michigan (acting through the MDOC) is not a “person” who may be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits claims only against defendants who qualify as “persons” under the statute.

HARRIS v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-03-30

Correct Care Solutions, LLC is not a “person” as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore any section 1983 claim that Plaintiff purports to assert against it is dismissed with prejudice, as amendment would be futile.

Section 1983 claims cannot be brought against the New York City Department of Correction because it is a city agency that cannot be sued separately.

Gordon v. Drummond · filed 2019-11-15

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

Peterson v. IMSI Medical · filed 2020-03-31

Plaintiff does not provide any specific allegations about his medical treatment at all, nor has he named an appropriate defendant. ... Finally, only a “person” may be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a state is not considered a “person” under that statute.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against the New Mexico Department of Corrections because it is not a person subject to suit.

Salazar v. New Mexico Department of Corrections · filed 2020-03-31

The “New Mexico Department of Corrections is not a ‘person’ subject to suit under § 1983.”

A state corrections department is not a person subject to liability under Section 1983.

Wade v. Campbell County Detention Center · filed 2020-04-01

Therefore, the KDOC is not a “person” subject to liability under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a sheriff’s office internal affairs division because it is not a person subject to suit.

Harmon v. Internal Affairs Division for Charlotte County Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-04-02

At the outset, IAD is not a “person” for § 1983.

State officials sued in their official capacities are persons under § 1983 when the claim seeks prospective injunctive relief.

Barto v. Miyashiro · filed 2020-04-06

The Court has determined that the Ex parte Young doctrine applies. Accordingly, Defendants sued in their official capacities are “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state circuit court because the court is not a person.

Ali v. Prince George's County Circuit Court · filed 2020-04-06

The Circuit Court is not a person and therefore cannot be sued for damages under § 1983.

State corrections departments and state-operated detention facilities are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Blake v. New Mexico Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-08

“[S]tate-operated detention facilities do not have a separate legal identity from the state, and therefore are not ‘persons’ who have the capacity to be sued under §1983.” ... The detention-facility defendants (NMDOC; SNMCF; GCCF; and LCCF) are therefore not proper parties in this suit.

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

Britz v. Langhurst · filed 2020-04-09

Although the Effingham County Sheriff’s Office is not a suable entity under Section 1983, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to substitute Effingham County in its place in Count 2.

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

Davis v. Marshall Co Jail · filed 2020-04-09

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 suits against individual state actors and local governments, but sheriff and police departments generally are not suable entities.

Graves v. State of Oregon · filed 2020-04-09

While individual state actors, local government units, or municipalities can be sued under Section 1983, sheriff or police departments are generally not considered suable entities.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against California community colleges or state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Duke v. San Francisco Community College District · filed 2020-04-10

Plaintiff’s claim alleged against CCSF and Rocha in his official capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as neither is a “person” under section 1983.

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

Dawes v. The People of the State of California · filed 2020-04-10

Departments of municipal entities are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983; therefore, a local law enforcement agency, like the SDSD, are not proper parties.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a prison medical unit because the unit is not a person.

Sanney v. Halawa Medical Unit · filed 2020-04-10

First, the HCF Medical Unit cannot be sued under § 1983 because it is not a person.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state or a state official sued in an official capacity because neither is a “person” under the statute.

Mueller v. State of Hawaii Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-04-14

Defendants are correct that a State is not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983 and cannot be sued pursuant to Section 1983. ... The State is also correct that Defendant Espinda in his official capacity does not constitute a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983 because a suit against the official capacity office is akin to a suit against the State itself.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a county department of justice or a state corrections agency that is not a suable entity.

Johnson-Bey v. St. Louis County Department of Justice · filed 2020-04-14

The complaint also fails to state a claim and is legally frivolous as to defendants St. Louis County Department of Justice and Missouri Department of Corrections, because neither is a suable entity under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a jail facility because the facility is not a person or legal entity subject to suit.

Greene v. Davidson County Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-04-14

First, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office (“DCSO”) because it is a jail facility, “not a ‘person’ or legal entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county jail’s medical department because the department is not a “person” under the statute.

Hunter v. Washtenaw County Sheriff Jail · filed 2020-04-15

Therefore, the Washtenaw County Jail’s Medical Department is not a “person” under § 1983, and Plaintiff’s claims against the Medical Department fail as a matter of law.

Section 1983 claims cannot be brought against a county jail that has no legal identity separate from the county.

London v. Nassau County Correctional Facility · filed 2020-04-15

Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against the Jail are not plausible because it does not have an independent legal identity.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county detention center or an officer’s crew because neither is a person subject to suit.

Swann v. Graybell · filed 2020-04-15

Moreover, as the Court previously noted, neither the Washington County Detention Center nor “Lt. Dishner’s Crew” is a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a plaintiff to sue a correctional facility building as the sole defendant.

Gutierrez v. Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility · filed 2020-04-16

The Magistrate Judge determined that although Plaintiff repeatedly referenced “Defendants” in articulating the various counts of her Amended Complaint, “the only ‘defendant’ identified by Plaintiff is a building against which suit cannot be brought” (id. at PageID.89). ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objection (ECF No. 13) is DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 12) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.

A prison facility is not a suable entity under Section 1983.

Dunn v. GEO Group, Inc. · filed 2020-04-16

A prison facility is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow claims against inanimate objects.

Backus v. Lawicka · filed 2020-04-16

Judge Baldwin recommends granting the IFP Application due to Backus’ inability to pay the filing fee and that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice because: (1) Backus largely sues inanimate objects that cannot be subject to liability; and (2) fails to state allegations that meet the requisite pleading standard. ... Having reviewed the Complaint, the Court agrees with these recommendations and will therefore accept the R&R in full.

Section 1983 does not treat a state university or a state official sued in an official capacity as a person, but permits claims for prospective injunctive relief against state officials.

McAllister v. Kent State University · filed 2020-04-16

State officials acting in their official capacities are not considered to be “persons” under Section 1983.

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

Dudley v. Sci-Camp Hill (Prison) · filed 2020-04-16

SCI Camp Hill is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a district attorney's office because it is not a suable entity.

Joyner v. Spinelli · filed 2020-04-17

The caselaw is clear, however, that a district attorney's office is not an entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A county jail or detention center is not a separate suable entity under § 1983; claims must be directed against the county that operates it.

Sickles v. Campbell County Detention Center · filed 2020-04-20

To begin, Sickles’s various claims against the two detention facilities are not directed at the appropriate defendant(s), because a county jail or detention center is not a suable entity apart from the county that operates it.

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

Hackney v. US Marshals Service · filed 2020-04-22

Randolph County Jail is named as a defendant in the case caption of the Complaint, but the Jail is not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A county jail cannot be sued under § 1983.

Shipps v. Scott County Jail · filed 2020-04-22

Plaintiff's claim against the Scott County Jail, itself, is legally frivolous because it cannot be sued.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against Menard Correctional Center or the Illinois Department of Corrections.

Bentz v. Mears · filed 2020-04-24

Both entities, however, are not subject to suit under section 1983.

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

DAVIS v. BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL · filed 2020-04-24

The Bartholomew County Jail is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a detention center building because it is not a person.

Wallace v. Prince George County Detention Center · filed 2020-04-24

Inanimate objects such as buildings and facilities are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a correctional institution that is not a suable entity.

Healy v. Cook · filed 2020-04-28

Plaintiff cannot proceed on his claim against Oshkosh Correctional Institution, however, as it is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a detention center because it is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

Robles v. Curry County Detention Center · filed 2020-04-29

CCDC is the only named defendant, and detention centers are not a ‘persons’ subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits only against persons; a state correctional institution is not a person under the statute.

Hentz v. Snake River Correctional Institution · filed 2020-04-29

Under § 1983, plaintiff can sue only “persons,” and SRCI is not a person.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state police troop because it is not a person under the statute.

Lowe v. Carroll 450 · filed 2020-05-04

In addition, Troop #6 “is not a person” subject to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 damages claims cannot proceed against immune judges and prosecutors or defendants who did not act under color of law.

Reed v. Wall · filed 2020-05-05

None of these individuals, however, can be sued for damages pursuant to Section 1983.

A § 1983 claim against the New York City Department of Corrections must be brought against the City instead because the department is not a suable entity.

Joseph v. NYC Department of Corrections · filed 2020-05-05

Thus, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the NYC DOC are dismissed because the DOC is not an entity that may be sued.

Section 1983 does not apply to claims against a federal agency.

Dufur v. U.S. Parole Commission · filed 2020-05-06

As explained above, Dufur should have brought most of his claims in habeas, rather than action invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (which, in any event, does not apply to claims against a federal agency) or the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.

Section 1983 does not treat a county sheriff’s department or 911 system as a person subject to suit.

Franklin v. Madison County 911 System · filed 2020-05-06

Finally, the Madison County Sheriff’s Department and 911 System are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

A county sheriff’s office is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Ellison v. Brooks · filed 2020-05-06

The Court finds that the “Claiborne County Sheriff’s Office” is not a suable entity under § 1983, and it will be DISMISSED.

Section 1983 does not allow a detainee to sue other inmates.

Mixon v. Winn · filed 2020-05-07

Plaintiff also cannot sue other inmates under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Section 1983 claims naming a police department that is not a separate suable entity may be treated as claims against the city.

Keilbaugh v. Salt Lake City Police Department · filed 2020-05-08

Although Plaintiff names Salt Lake City Police Department as a Defendant, the Salt Lake City Police Department is a governmental sub-unit of Salt Lake City Corporation. As such, it is not a separate legal entity capable of being sued or filing suit. ... Accordingly, the court liberally construes Plaintiff’s pro se Amended Complaint and treats her claims against the Salt Lake City Police Department as though they were against Salt Lake City Corporation.

Section 1983 permits suit only against a person; a correctional center is not an appropriate defendant.

(PC) Love v. Perry · filed 2020-05-11

However, as plaintiff was instructed previously, a § 1983 action is only appropriate against a “person.” Accordingly, CCC is not an appropriate defendant in this action.

New York City police departments and precincts lack the capacity to be sued under § 1983; claims against them must be brought against the City.

McKinley v. Detective Kyle Crevatas · filed 2020-05-11

The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the NYPD and the Ninth Precinct because they lack the capacity to be sued.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to be a person; prison medical and mental health departments do not qualify.

Brittingham v. Nunn · filed 2020-05-12

Instead, the claim is raised against the Medical and Mental Health Departments, neither of whom are persons as is required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Cantrell v. Lynchburg Adult Detention Center · filed 2020-05-13

One defendant whom Cantrell has named is a jail facility; jails are not persons and thus cannot be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to name a person capable of being sued; naming an unidentified group of prison medical staff does not suffice.

Tabbert, Derek v. Green Bay Medical Staff · filed 2020-05-13

The only defendant named in his complaint is “Green Bay Medical Staff,” but generally in this type of lawsuit, a plaintiff needs to name individual people who violated his rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (plaintiff may bring lawsuit against “every person” who violated his rights). Tabbert does not name any individuals as defendants. Without naming a person capable of being sued, Tabbert cannot proceed on any claims.

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

Clark v. Montgomery County Police Department · filed 2020-05-13

MCCF is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not cover a state official acting in an official capacity because that official is not a “person” under the statute.

Richmond v. Cockrum · filed 2020-05-14

Therefore, the claims are barred because Defendant is not a “person” under Section 1983, regardless of whether the state is liable for a judgment against Defendant.

Section 1983 requires a claim for deprivation of rights and facts showing that the defendant can be sued under the section.

WHITE v. WISHARD HOSPITAL · filed 2020-05-15

But Ms. White alleges no facts showing that Wishard Hospital can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and regardless she raises claims for medical negligence and pain and suffering rather than for a deprivation of rights.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a correctional facility that is a building rather than an individual, corporation, or governmental entity.

Musa v. Westville Correctional Facility · filed 2020-05-18

The Westville Correctional Facility is a building, not an individual, corporation, or governmental entity that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county jail because the jail is a non-suable entity.

GOFF v. VIGO COUNTY POLICE OFFICER · filed 2020-05-18

The claims against the Vigo County Jail are dismissed because the jail is a non-suable entity.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county jail because the jail is not an entity that can be sued.

Johnson v. Grisham · filed 2020-05-18

Based upon the allegations in the complaint, Schultz and Kelley are employed by the Phelps County Jail, which is not an entity that can be sued under § 1983.

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

Dowling v. US Corrections LLC · filed 2020-05-18

First, the Knox County Sheriff’s Office is not an entity that may be sued under § 1983.

A state university and its officials sued in their official capacities are not persons subject to damages under § 1983.

Doe v. Purdue University · filed 2020-05-19

As such, Defendants are correct that they are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a prison medical department because it is not a person subject to suit.

Caudill v. Doak · filed 2020-05-19

Caudill’s claim against Wellpath fails for the additional reason that a prison medical department is not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Savage v. Sussex Correctional Inst. · filed 2020-05-20

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

Section 1983 does not permit a public elementary school to be sued as a separate entity.

Johnson v. Knox County, Tennessee · filed 2020-05-20

The Court further notes that Northshore Elementary School is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow claims against a state corrections department or its prison because they are not persons under the statute.

Jones v. Howard R. Young Correction Institution · filed 2020-05-21

In addition, dismissal is proper because the DOC and HRYCI are not persons for purposes of § 1983.

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

Thompson v. John Doe 1 · filed 2020-05-21

Plaintiff names the Madison County Sheriff’s Office as a defendant. This entity is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Phillips v. Lewisburg Police Department · filed 2020-05-21

First, with respect to the Lewisburg Police Department, 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 a suit against a police dog because a dog is not a person.

Scott v. Lazure · filed 2020-05-22

A dog, however, lacks capacity to be sued and is not a person within the meaning of Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against detention center buildings because they are not persons subject to suit.

Snyder v. Rowe · filed 2020-05-22

Inanimate objects such as buildings, facilities, and grounds do not act under color of state law and are not “person[s]” subject to suit under §1983.

A correctional facility is not an entity that can be sued under § 1983 in its own right.

August v. Stark Regional Community Correction Center · filed 2020-05-22

SRCCC, a correctional facility, is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983 in its own right.

An Indiana county prosecutor sued in his official capacity is a state official, not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

JONES v. CUMMINGS · filed 2020-05-26

Based on the foregoing analysis, we hold that Mr. Cummings in his official capacity as elected prosecutor of Madison County is, in law and in fact, a state official; therefore, he is not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.