42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not treat a state or a state official sued in an official capacity as a person subject to suit.

Dean v. Campbell · filed 1997-07-17

Neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983. ... The defendants in the present case were clearly sued in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not subject a state department to suit or permit damages against state officials in their official capacities.

Berwick Grain Company, Inc. And David McCrery Jr. v. Illinois Department of Agriculture, Rebecca Doyle, Thomas E. Jennin · filed 1997-07-03

We note that the Department is not subject to suit under § 1983; nor, insofar as McCrery requests damages, are the named defendants in their official capacities.

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

Costello v. Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission · filed 1997-10-15

As the MRC points out, states and their agencies are not “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against Indiana county departments of public welfare after the 1986 reorganization because they are arms of the state.

JAW v. State · filed 1997-11-21

We now hold that a 1986 reorganization, Act of Mar. 12, 1986, Pub.L. No. 16-1986, 1986 Ind. Acts 403, rendered the county departments arms of the state for § 1983 purposes.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against Indiana county departments of public welfare for conduct after the 1986 reorganization because they are arms of the state.

J.A.W. v. State, Marion County Dept. of Public Welfare · filed 1997-11-21

We now hold that a 1986 reorganization, Act of Mar. 12, 1986, Pub.L. No. 16-1986, 1986 Ind. Acts 403, rendered the county departments arms of the state for § 1983 purposes.

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

Jackson v. Johnson · filed 1997-12-11

The law is clear that the state, and state agencies such as DOCS, are immune from prisoner § 1983 suits because of their Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; in addition, neither a state nor a state agency is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 bars monetary damages claims against state employees in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute; individual-capacity claims may proceed.

Russo v. Palmer · filed 1998-01-27

In Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), the Supreme Court held that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Accordingly, the claim for monetary damages against defendants — employees of the State of Illinois Department of Corrections — in their official capacities is barred. A claim against the defendants in their individual capacities remains, however.

Section 1983 permits a suit for monetary relief against a state official in the official’s personal capacity.

Daviston v. Louisiana State Board of Nursing · filed 1998-01-27

By contrast, a state official sued for monetary relief in his personal capacity is subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages claims against states or state agencies because they are not persons under the statute.

Moore v. McManus · filed 1998-02-17

States and state agencies are not “persons” within the meaning of §1983 so a claim against the Commonwealth or one of its agencies may not be maintained for money damages.

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

Greffey v. State of Ala. Dept. of Corrections · filed 1998-03-20

A state is not considered a “person” subject to suit for money damages under § 1983. ... A suit against a state department “is no different from a suit against the State itself.” ... Accordingly, plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against the Alabama Department of Corrections is due to be dismissed.

A state university that is an arm of the state is not a person subject to suit under § 1983; its corporate form alone does not make it suable.

Graham v. State Ex Rel. University of Northern Colorado · filed 1998-04-06

Hence, although the General Assembly chose a corporate form for UNC’s governance, we find no intent to waive sovereign immunity or to subject UNC to exposure under § 1983.

The State is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Cavanaugh v. Doherty · filed 1998-06-04

The State is not a proper party to such claims because the State is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 USC § 1983 (see, Ferrick v State of New York, 198 AD2d 822, 823; see also, Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58, 62-71; cf, Monell v Department of Social Servs., 436 US 658).

Section 1983 does not authorize a claim against a state because a state is not a person under the section.

Lawson v. Shelby County, Tenn. · filed 1998-06-30

Furthermore, a state is not a person within the meaning of section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency that is an arm of the state.

Barre v. Pease Dev. Auth. · filed 1998-07-06

As discussed above, because the PDA is an arm of the state, it cannot be sued under section 1983.

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

Andrews v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 1998-08-03

The DEP, a state agency, is not a “person” pursuant to section 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against a state entity because a state entity is not a person under the statute.

Heckman v. University of North Carolina · filed 1998-08-11

Defendant, who is a state entity, is not a "person" for the purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not apply to states or state agencies.

Brady v. Dill · filed 1998-10-16

42 U.S.C. § 1983, however, plainly does not apply to states or state agencies.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against states or state agencies because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Sims v. Kernan · filed 1998-12-04

Moreover, even if the Eleventh Amendment did not preclude the plaintiffs claims against the state, § 1983 claims may only be brought against “persons.” States, and state agencies, are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

States and state agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Johnson v. Supreme Court of Illinois · filed 1999-01-21

That contention is doomed by the fact that states and their agencies are not “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68-69, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997); Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), and blocked by the eleventh amendment to the extent it rests on supposed violations of other laws.

Section 1983 does not permit retrospective monetary relief against a state agency or state employees in their official capacity because the state is not a “person” under the statute.

Duncan v. State of Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services · filed 1999-02-03

With respect to the DHFS and official capacity claims, even if the district court was wrong to assume that Duncan had abandoned them, it is plain in any event that neither the state agency itself nor the state employees in their official capacity can be sued for retrospective monetary relief, for the simple reason that the state is not a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a state agency that is an arm of the State as a person subject to suit.

Brinkley v. Texas Lottery Commission · filed 1999-02-04

The Texas Lottery Commission is an “arm of the State” and not a person under section 1983.

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

Shannon Brinkley, D/B/A Krane-Ko Vending v. Texas Lottery Commission · filed 1999-02-04

The Texas Lottery Commission is an "arm of the State" and not a person under section 1983.

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

Jenkins v. Department of Corrections · filed 1999-05-28

The trial court properly granted the Department’s motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim. ... “[T]he [Department] is not a ‘person’ against whom a § 1983 claim for damages will lie.”

Section 1983 does not treat a state or state agency as a person and does not override the state’s immunity.

Barbara M. Ryan and William O. Gillespie v. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services · filed 1999-07-16

Here, there is no waiver, and it is well established that neither a state nor a state agency like DCFS is a “person” for purposes of § 1983, see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), and thus that § 1983 does not trump the state’s immunity.

Section 1983 does not authorize a claim against a state commission because a state is not a person under the statute.

Bowden Corp. v. Tn Real Estate · filed 1999-07-20

A state, however, is not a "person" as contemplated by section 1983, and may not be sued under the statute.

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

Center for Legal Studies, Inc. v. Lindley · filed 1999-08-18

Thus, the § 1983 claims against defendants ODE, OESS, the State of Oregon, Lindley, Fleming, and Young in his official capacity are not properly before this court, because the state officials sued in their official capacities, arms of the state, and the state itself, are not persons within the meaning of § 1983 and therefore are not liable under § 1983.

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

Roderick v. NH Hospital, et al. · filed 2000-01-28

In Will, the Supreme Court held that “a State is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.” ... Plaintiff does not dispute, and indeed alleges in ¶ 4 of her complaint, that the hospital “is a department of the State of New Hampshire.” Thus, under Will, the hospital is entitled to summary judgment on Count V.

A state and its agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983 in state court.

Lawson v. State of Mississippi · filed 2000-03-03

This Court has held that the State and state agencies are not "persons" that Congress intended to subject to liability, and therefore, cannot be sued under § 1983 in state court. ... As a result, Lofton failed to meet the first element of a § 1983 claim and the State's Rule 12(b) motion was properly granted.

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

Mittendorf v. Braun · filed 2000-03-27

Having carefully reviewed the record, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we conclude dismissal was proper because the State is not a “person” for purposes of section 1983, and all defendants are immune from this suit, see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993) (prosecutorial immunity); Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989) (state is not “person” under § 1983); Duty v. City of Springdale, Ark., 42 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (judicial immunity); Williams v. Missouri, 973 F.2d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (state’s sovereign immunity).

Section 1983 permits claims for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief against state officials in their official capacities, but not claims for monetary damages against them.

Johnson v. Guhl · filed 2000-04-07

Therefore, although Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendants for monetary damages must be dismissed, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, those claims withstand Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

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

Taylor v. Alabama · filed 2000-04-19

Based on Will and Ex Parte Alabama Dep’t of Transp., the State of Alabama and the DOT, as its agency, are immune from liability on Plaintiffs § 1983 claims because these entities are not “persons” within the meaning of the statute.

Section 1983 does not permit a civil rights claim against an instrumentality of the Commonwealth because it is not a person.

Van Houtum v. Campos · filed 2000-05-05

Though on its face Van Houtum’s claim meets the pleading requirements of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G.L.c. 12, §§11H and 1II, and 42 U.S.C. §1983, her claim nevertheless fails. ... Accordingly, as discussed above, the Trust Fund is an instrumentality of the Commonwealth, not a “person” for Civil Rights Act purposes and cannot be charged with violations of civil rights.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against an arm of the state because it is not a person under the statute.

Davis v. Utah State Tax Commission · filed 2000-05-08

Because the Commission, an arm of the state, is not a “person,” for purposes of Section 1983, the claim cannot survive.

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

Goldbarth v. Kansas State Board of Regents · filed 2000-07-26

A state agency is not a “person” under § 1983.

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

Bane v. Virginia Dept. of Corrections · filed 2000-08-14

VDOC, as an agency of the state, is an improper defendant in a § 1983 action.

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

Manikhi v. Mass Transit Administration · filed 2000-08-24

MTA is a state agency and, as such, is not a “person” under § 1983 and can have no § 1983 liability.

State agencies that are arms of the state are not persons subject to liability under § 1983.

Thomas v. Nakatani · filed 2000-10-13

Similarly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the § 1983 claim against the DOA- — the DOA is clearly an “arm of the state” and is not a “person” for § 1983 liability either.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state department because it is not a “person” under the statute.

STS Management Development, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance · filed 2000-11-13

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the causes of action based on 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985 insofar as they were asserted against the Department of Taxation on the ground that it was not a “person” within the meaning of the Federal statute (see, Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58).

Section 1983 does not impose liability on state agencies because they are not considered persons under the statute.

Reese v. Industrial Commission · filed 2001-01-31

However, state agencies, such as the defendants in this case, are not considered a “person” for purposes of liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on state agencies.

Hackbarth v. Regents of University of California · filed 2001-02-23

Because the Regents are a state agency not subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court did not err by dismissing Hackbarth’s equal protection cause of action.

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

Arsberry v. State of Illinois · filed 2001-03-19

The State of Illinois is not a person within the meaning of section 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a suit against a state university that is an arm of the state merely because the alleged violation followed a government custom or policy.

O'HARA v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania · filed 2001-03-26

Because the State System of Higher Education and its component universities are an arm of the State, not of any municipality or local government, the “custom, policy and practice” exception of Monell is inapplicable.

States and state agencies are not persons subject to liability under Section 1983.

Lawson v. State · filed 2001-04-24

States and state agencies are not “persons” for the purposes of section 1983, and cannot be subjected to liability.

States and state agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983 in state court.

Lofton v. United States · filed 2001-05-17

This Court has held that the State and state agencies are not "persons" that Congress intended to subject to liability, and therefore, cannot be sued under § 1983 in state court. ... As a result, Lofton failed to meet the first element of a § 1983 claim and the State's Rule 12(b) motion was properly granted.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state department of corrections.

Smith v. Alabama Department of Corrections · filed 2001-06-27

Accordingly, summary judgment is due to be GRANTED as to the § 1983 claims for damages as against the Department of Corrections.

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

Carroll, Ronnie W. v. DeTella, George E. · filed 2001-07-03

The Illinois EPA is a state agency and thus not a "person" suable under section 1983, Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Arsberry v. Illinois, 244 F.3d 558, 561 (7th Cir. 2001), and its two employees were not served.

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

Torrence v. Pelkey · filed 2001-07-06

It is well-settled that a state agency is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

Counties are persons subject to suit under § 1983 when the other requirements for liability are met.

Sims v. Marnocha · filed 2001-08-23

Will, however, held only that states and their agencies are not persons within the meaning of § 1983. Counties are “persons” exposed to litigation under the federal civil rights statutes, if the legal requisites are fulfilled.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a governmental entity that is an arm of the State because it is not a “person” under the statute.

May v. Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital · filed 2001-09-19

Thus, we conclude that since the Hospital, as “arm of the State,” is not a “person” under sections 1983 or 1985, the Hospital is protected from May’s lawsuit by virtue of sovereign immunity.

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

Lyon v. Jones · filed 2001-10-12

The court grants defendants’ motion as to the claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Attorney General on the grounds that the state is not a person and is not, therefore, subject to suit under that statute and the claim is barred by immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state agency that is an arm of the state.

Longoria v. New Jersey · filed 2001-10-17

In short, all of the Fitchik factors suggest strongly that the Division of State Police is an arm of the state, and, as such, I conclude that it is not subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Tolman v. Finneran · filed 2001-11-14

Moreover, the state is not a “person” within the meaning of section 1983.

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

Arrington v. Elections Board · filed 2001-11-28

As it is a state agency and not a person, the Wisconsin Elections Board is not suable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides only for liability against “person[s]” who, under color of state law, deprive others of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States.

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

Lattimer v. Dept of Correction · filed 2001-12-11

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 authorizes suit against “every person” who is responsible for alleged violations of constitutional rights. However, the Department of Correction is not a “person” within the meaning of the act.

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

Wasko v. Rico · filed 2002-01-04

Under § 1983 a state is not a person. ... Hence, on the alternative, Plaintiffs claims against the Commonwealth must be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim under § 1983.

State agencies are not persons under § 1983 and cannot be sued under it.

Walker v. Zunker · filed 2002-02-27

The district court is correct that state agencies are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983 and thus are not subject to suit.

State agencies immune under the Eleventh Amendment are not persons subject to liability under § 1983.

Department of Public Affairs v. Colorado Department of Corrections · filed 2002-03-14

Finally, because the DOC is an agency of the state immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, it is not a “person” for purposes of liability under § 1983.

States are not persons who can be sued under § 1983, and state agencies are immune from such claims.

Fedorov v. BOARD OF REGENTS FOR UNIVERSITY OF GA. · filed 2002-03-29

Specifically, states are not persons capable of being sued within the meaning of § 1983. ... Accordingly, Defendant Board of Regents enjoys total immunity from Plaintiff's claims under the ADA and § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states or their agencies because states are not persons under the statute.

Fedorov v. Board of Regents for University of Georgia · filed 2002-03-29

Specifically, states are not persons capable of being sued within the meaning of § 1983. ... Accordingly, Defendant Board of Regents enjoys total immunity from Plaintiffs claims under the ADA and § 1983.

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

Harris v. New York State Department of Health · filed 2002-04-24

Because neither the State nor its agencies qualify as “persons” under § 1983, they are not subject to suit under that statute.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state employees sued in their official capacities, even though a state itself is not a person subject to suit.

Juresic v. Department of Human Services · filed 2002-05-24

While a state is not a "person" subject to a section 1983 lawsuit, a state employee in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, is a person under section 1983 because "official capacity" actions for prospective relief are not considered to be actions against the State.

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

Brown v. Newberger · filed 2002-05-30

The claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fail because a state and its agencies are not “persons.”

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because a state is not a “person” under the section.

Jacobs v. State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources · filed 2002-05-31

However, it is well established that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983. ... Accordingly, plaintiff Jacobs is not entitled to assert in this case a claim against the DNR under § 1983 nor is he entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under § 1988.

Section 1983 does not treat states or state officials sued in their official capacities as persons subject to suit.

University of Southern Mississippi v. Davida Dawn Williams · filed 2002-07-30

However, based upon established principles of statutory construction and common law immunities, the United States Supreme Court has held that neither states nor state officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. ... Accordingly, any § 1983 claims by Williams should have been dismissed as a matter of law, and the circuit court erred when it denied USM’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict regarding Williams’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.

States are not persons subject to a damages suit under § 1983.

Zabka v. Illinois · filed 2002-08-05

Zabka’s § 1983 claim is frivolous because it is made against the state, and states are not “persons” amenable to a suit for damages under § 1983.

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

Dillon-Barber v. Regents of the University of Michigan · filed 2002-11-22

That dismissal was properly granted with prejudice because, as the district court properly pointed out, as an arm of the state, the University is not a "person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against the University of Kansas or the University of Kansas Medical Center because they are not persons within its meaning.

Wendt v. University of Kansas Medical Center · filed 2002-12-06

It appears the Beck reasoning would also require that KU be determined not to be a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. Thus, the trial court did not err in dismissing these claims as to KU and KUMC.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against a state agency or state officials acting in their official capacities.

Dickinson v. Gonzalez · filed 2003-01-02

Neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities can be sued for damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state or its state police agency because they are not persons under the statute.

Jimenez v. New Jersey · filed 2003-02-20

Plaintiff's claims against the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Division of State Police fail under § 1983. The Supreme Court expressly held that the term "person” in the statute does not include the state or state officials acting in their official capacity.

Section 1983 provides no remedy against a state or state agency.

Lueck v. Wathen · filed 2003-05-19

Section 1983 does not create a remedy against a state or state agency.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state agencies for any type of relief.

Ross v. Indiana State Board of Nursing · filed 2003-06-13

As state agencies, the Board and the Bureau are not “persons” amenable to a suit seeking any type of relief under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit an action against a state agency because the state is not a person under the statute.

Dulai v. Michigan · filed 2003-07-25

Although we disagree with the district court’s interpretation of Will, we agree that Will precludes Plaintiffs action against this Defendant.

Section 1983 does not authorize a suit against a state government department because it is not a person under the statute.

Vickroy v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation · filed 2003-07-31

The Department is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983, so the district court properly dismissed it.

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

Endres, Benjamin v. Indiana State Police · filed 2003-11-19

The Indiana State Police, as a unit of state government, is not a “person” as §1983 uses that term and therefore is not amenable to a suit for damages under that statute.

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

Kelley v. City of Michigan City · filed 2004-01-12

Because NICTD’s status as a state agency has been determined as such by these courts, a similar conclusion is made in this instance for the purpose of determining that NICTD is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

A state department of corrections is not a proper defendant under § 1983.

Randell Brown v. MO Dept of Correctio · filed 2004-01-14

Finally, we agree with the district court that MDOC was not a proper party under section 1983.

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

Randell Brown v. Missouri Department of Corrections · filed 2004-01-14

Finally, we agree with the district court that MDOC was not a proper party under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against a state agency because a state agency is not a “person” under the statute.

Savage v. Scales · filed 2004-03-16

Defendant NCSEAA states that plaintiff cannot maintain his § 1983 action against it because neither a state nor a state agency is a proper “person” as defined in the statute. Defendant is correct.

Section 1983 treats state officials as persons who may be sued.

Bond v. Stanton · filed 1977-05-20

It is irrelevant that the state is not a person under § 1983, if indeed the defendants are correct in arguing that it is not. . State officials clearly are.

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

Smith v. State of New Mexico · filed 2004-04-09

Further, the claims asserted against the State of New Mexico and against Price and Birdsall while acting in their official capacities failed because “neither a State nor its officials, acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’” against whom a claim for damages can be brought pursuant to § 1983. ... We have reviewed the briefs and the applicable law and have found no reversible error in the district court’s analysis. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Smith’s complaint.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state regulatory agency that is an arm of the state.

ANR Pipeline Co. v. Michigan Public Service Commission · filed 1984-09-10

In any event, I am convinced that the MPSC is an arm of the state protected by the eleventh amendment, and is not a "person" for the purposes of section 1983.

Section 1983 permits injunctive relief against a state commissioner sued in his official capacity because he is a person within the section’s meaning.

ALWIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. Lufkin · filed 1973-06-28

As to whether Commissioner Lufkin in his official capacity is a “person” within the meaning of section 1983, it now seems settled that he is for purposes of injunctive relief.

Section 1983 does not treat a state or an arm of the state as a person subject to suit.

Hale v. State of Arizona · filed 1993-05-04

For these reasons, we conclude that ARCOR is an arm of the State of Arizona and that it is not a person within § 1983.

A state police agency is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

LaBauve v. State · filed 1993-05-12

The trial court erred in denying the motion in limine requesting dismissal of the State Police from Mr. LaBauve's federal law claim as it is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat state agencies as persons subject to suit.

Sica v. Connecticut · filed 2004-08-23

For example, the Court agrees with Defendants that the state agencies — the Connecticut Department of Public Health and the Connecticut Medical Examining Board — are not "persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a state employee sued in her official capacity as a person when retrospective relief is sought.

Whinery v. Roberson · filed 2004-12-17

A State employee-Sue Roberson-sued in her official capacity is not a "person" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 when sued for retrospective relief.

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

Small, Jimmie E. v. Chao, Elaine L. · filed 2005-02-14

Small cannot assert a § 1983 action against IDCCA, for the simple reason that, as part of the State of Illinois, it is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal claim against a state agency because the agency is not a person within its meaning.

Levy v. Office of the Legislative Auditor · filed 2005-03-28

There is no dispute that the Office of the Legislative Auditor is a state agency. It is also clear that the Supreme Court in Will found that the State and its agencies were not persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, the Office of the Legislative Auditor must be dismissed without prejudice as a defendant in this case on the federal claims.

State agencies that are arms of the state are not persons subject to suit under §1983.

Rainey, Eddie L. v. IL Dept Children · filed 2005-04-05

The agency is not itself a proper party, as it is an arm of the state and therefore not a “person” for purposes of §1983.

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

King v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. · filed 2005-04-15

First of all, "[t]he State of Alabama, its agencies, and its officials acting in their official capacities are not considered `persons' for purposes of an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." [3] State Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Sexton, 748 So.2d 200, 216 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991)). Thus, the summary judgment in favor of ADOC on Ms. King's § 1983 claim is affirmed.

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

Thomas v. COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2005-06-06

As previously noted, the Commonwealth and its agencies are not “persons” for the purpose of sustaining a § 1983 action.

States and state agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983, and state officers cannot be sued for money damages in their official capacities.

Franklin v. Kansas Department of Corrections · filed 2005-12-23

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that neither states nor state officers sued in their official capacities are “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... For these reasons, Franklin’s § 1983 claims against Kansas and its agencies or arms, his claims for money damages from Kansas employees in their official capacities, and his claims for injunctive relief were properly dismissed.

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

Witte v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections · filed 2006-01-23

The first is substantive: he has sued the Wisconsin Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but it is well established that the “state,” which the DOC is for this purpose, is not a “person” that may be sued under that statute.

Section 1983 treats a state official sued in an official capacity for prospective injunctive relief as a person subject to suit.

American Bank and Trust Co. of Opelousas v. Dent · filed 1993-02-09

The Commissioner's attempt to invoke the Court's statement as dispositive of this Eleventh Amendment case, however (and thus as an implicit abandonment of the Young doctrine), is undercut by the Will Court's recognition of the special sovereign immunity rules applicable to suits for purely prospective relief, and the limitation of its section 1983 holding to make it consistent with those principles: "Of course a State official in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under § 1983 because "official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.' " Id. at 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. at 2311 n. 10 (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3106 n. 14, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985)).

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against a state agency because the agency is not a “person” under the statute.

Bond v. Franchise Tax Board · filed 2006-03-29

The district court also properly dismissed Bond’s remaining claims because the defendant state agency is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985, see Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), and it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Mitchell v. Franchise Tax Board (In re Mitchell), 209 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (9th Cir.2000).

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a State, and state agencies are immune from such a suit absent a waiver of immunity.

Farmer v. State of Oklahoma Bradford Griffith Supreme Court and State of Oklahoma, Department of Human Servic · filed 1993-05-27

"[A] State is not a person within the meaning of § 1983." Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). ... Thus, we conclude both the State and its agencies are immune from suit by Mr. Farmer.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against a state university or its officials in their official capacities because the state is not a person under the statute.

Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois · filed 2006-04-20

The Court dismisses Doe’s claims for monetary damages against the University and its officials in them official capacity because the state is not a “person” under section 1983.

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

Pointer v. Missouri Department of Corrections · filed 2002-09-12

We also agree with the district court that Pointer did not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Ryan v. Ill. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 185 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 1999) (state agency is not “person” under § 1983).

Section 1983 does not allow money damages against a state or state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Toomer v. Garrett · filed 2002-12-31

Following U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the courts of this State have held that the State and state officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983 for purposes of recovering money damages. ... Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for money damages.

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

Adams v. Neubauer · filed 2006-07-26

A state agency is not a “person” under § 1983 and is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state university as a state agency, even when the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.

Anthony v. Cleveland · filed 1973-02-28

With respect to the first contention, it is clear that the University of Hawaii is an agency of the state. ... Likewise, I find no merit in Plaintiff’s assertion that the University is an agency of such independent status that it is amenable to a § 1983 action. ... Accordingly, I reject Plaintiff’s assertion that actions for injunctive relief are exempt from the rule laid down in Monroe.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or its arms in state court, including suits for injunctive or declaratory relief.

Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation v. Maria Pallotta, David Lopez, Dolphin Technical Institute and Carolyn Mod · filed 2006-08-24

Although the State may be sued for injunctive and declaratory relief under certain circumstances, the State and its arms cannot be sued under § 1983 in state court.

Section 1983 permits suits for injunctive relief against state agencies and officials sued in their official capacities.

Jesus Christ Prison Ministry v. California Department of Corrections · filed 2006-09-28

Howev er, state agencies and officials sued in their official capacities for injunctive relief are persons for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 treats state officials as persons who may be sued for prospective relief, even when they act in their official capacities.

Rochester v. White · filed 1974-09-05

The district judge’s ruling that he is without jurisdiction to grant prospective relief must be reversed since the public officials named as defendants are “persons” within Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state agency exercising state power because the agency is not a person subject to suit under the section.

Leach v. Moore · filed 2007-07-02

Specifically, we find that the section 1915A dismissal of the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) Legal Department was proper. See Barket, Levy & Fine, Inc. v. St. Louis Thermal Energy Corp., 948 F.2d 1084, 1086 (8th Cir. 1991) (agency exercising state power is not “‘person’” subject to § 1983 suit).

States and state education departments are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Hayes v. Williamsville Central School District · filed 2007-08-10

Further, under current law, neither the State nor its Education Department is considered a "person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not authorize claims against a state agency because it is not a “person” under the statute.

Harper v. Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners · filed 2007-08-29

Accordingly, because the § 1983 claims at issue in this appeal are asserted against the Land Board, an entity that is not a “person” under that statute, the district court’s grant of summary judgment was proper.

Section 1983 does not treat states or state officials sued in their official capacities for money damages as persons subject to suit.

Yarnall v. Mendez · filed 2007-09-10

The claims against the State Police and Mendez, in his official capacity, are barred by Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 69, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), which holds that neither states nor state officials sued in their official capacities for money damages are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a state department of corrections as a person subject to suit.

Adams v. Hunsberger · filed 2008-01-29

The District Court properly concluded that Adams’ claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections were barred, as it is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), and that Adams failed to state a claim against any of the Appellees under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as he did not allege any discriminatory conduct based on his disability.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states or state agencies that are arms of the state, though individual officials may be sued.

Kompara v. Board of Regents of the State University · filed 1982-09-22

Thus, as long as the Board and ETSU are viewed as “arms of the state,” the eleventh amendment acts to preclude their being named as defendants in a section 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not permit an action against a state agency because the agency is not a person under the statute.

Pruitt v. West Virginia Department of Public Safety · filed 2008-06-03

Applying this holding to the facts before us, we find that the Department of Public Safety, as an agency of the state is not a “person” under § 1983. As a result, an action under that statute cannot be brought against the Department.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state entity that is effectively the state when its officers are not sued.

Clark v. Tarrant County, Tex. · filed 1985-03-20

However, states, especially when, as here, they have not been sued through their officers, are not “persons” within the meaning of Section 1983.

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

Alexander v. Northeastern Illinois University · filed 2008-06-23

They also argue, correctly, that NEIU is not a “person” for the purposes of § 1983. Consequently, Alexander may not assert a § 1983 claim against NEIU.

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

San Diego Minutemen v. California Business, Transportation & Housing Agency's Department of Transportation · filed 2008-06-27

In addition, the Court concludes that Defendant Caltrans is not a person pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow claims against state governmental units because they are not persons under the statute.

Walton v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 2008-08-21

Because the TDCJ is a unit of the State government, and not a person, it is not subject to appellant's section 1983 cause of action.

A state official sued in an official capacity for prospective injunctive relief is a person under § 1983.

Bogaert v. Land · filed 2008-08-27

Under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), however, “a state official in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under § 1983 because ‘official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.’ ” Will, 491 U.S. at 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304 (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985)).

The State and its agencies are not persons subject to liability under § 1983.

Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr. v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division · filed 2008-08-28

The State and its agencies are not “persons” for purposes of liability under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a money damages claim against a State or an agency that is an arm of the State because it is not a person under the statute.

McLean v. Gordon · filed 2008-12-01

As the Supreme Court reminded us, “a State is not a ‘person’ against whom a § 1983 claim for money damages might be asserted.” ... Thus, the district court erred in failing to grant summary judgment for DSS, an agency or “arm[ ] of the State,” on the section 1983 claim brought by McLean.

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

Staples v. Franchise Tax Board · filed 2008-12-02

The district court also properly dismissed Staples’ remaining claims because the listed state agencies were not persons under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985, see Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), and they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Mitchell v. Franchise Tax Board (In re Mitchell), 209 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (9th Cir.2000).

Section 1983 does not treat a state university that is an arm of the state as a person subject to suit.

Hampton v. Tennessee Board of Law Examiners · filed 1988-11-22

This defendant, as an arm of the state, is not a “person” under § 1983.

States and their agencies cannot be sued under § 1983 for violations allegedly committed by state employees.

Maynard v. New Jersey · filed 1989-07-28

As plaintiffs admit in their letter brief of July 7, 1989, a cause of action cannot lie against the State of New Jersey or its agencies, East New Jersey State Prison or Department of Corrections, for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allegedly committed by state employees. ... Thus, plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against New Jersey, East Jersey State Prison, and New Jersey Department of Corrections must be dismissed with prejudice.

State agencies, including state courts, are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Russillo v. Scarborough · filed 1989-12-20

Further, state agencies are not considered a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow relief against state agencies that are arms of the state because they are not “persons” under the Civil Rights Act.

Allison v. California Adult Authority · filed 1969-12-11

The decisions of this court ... make clear that state agencies which are but arms of the state government are not “persons” for purposes of the Civil Rights Act. Therefore plaintiff would not be entitled to relief against the California Adult Authority or San Quentin State Prison.

Section 1983 does not treat a state supreme court acting as a state agency as a person subject to suit.

Brown v. Supreme Court of Nevada · filed 1979-07-17

This is correct; the Nevada Supreme Court as an agency of the State of Nevada, is immune from suit under both the Eleventh Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is not a “person” under the latter.

Section 1983 treats state officials sued for injunctive relief as persons.

Treleven v. University of Minnesota David S. Kidwell · filed 1996-01-12

Additionally, state officials are “persons” under § 1983 when sued for injunctive relief because such actions “are not treated as actions against the State.”

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

Pc v. Connecticut Department of Children and Families · filed 2009-07-24

A state agency is not a “person” within the meaning of section 1983.

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

Tower v. Leslie-Brown · filed 2001-10-09

The Maine State Police and the Maine DHS, however, are not municipalities, and therefore the Court determines that they are immune to Plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state instrumentality that is an extension of the state because it is not a “person” under the statute.

Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation · filed 2009-08-20

In other words, NJT is not a “person” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because NJT is not a “person” as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 it cannot be held liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency acting as an arm of the state.

Watkins v. Mitchem · filed 2010-05-07

As recognized in Griswold, a state agency, as an arm of the state, is immune from suit in a § 1983 action. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed Watkins’s claims against the Department of Corrections.

A state official sued in her official capacity for prospective injunctive relief is a person under § 1983.

Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Geithner · filed 2010-05-21

When sued for prospective injunctive relief, a state official in her official capacity is considered a "person" for § 1983 purposes.

Section 1983 does not permit a money damages suit against a state agency that is an arm of the state without the state's consent or congressional abrogation.

Surprenant v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority · filed 2011-05-09

Because a State, its agencies, and agency officials are not “persons” for purposes of § 1983, these entities are not subject to suit for money damages in the federal courts without the State’s consent or a clear abrogation of State sovereignty by Congress.

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

Hugh McGinley, Gillian McGinley vs State of Florida Dept of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Mark Ober · filed 2011-08-08

The Florida Highway Patrol is a state agency, and as such the McGinleys can not bring a § 1983 claim against it.

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

Gardner v. Riska · filed 2011-09-22

As the DOC is a state agency, and thus not a person within the meaning of § 1983, Gardner’s § 1983 claim for damages against the DOC is frivolous.

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

Adams v. Recovery School District · filed 2012-02-28

That Department is an arm of the state of Louisiana, and does not qualify as a “person” who may be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or a state agency.

Pacheco v. State of Conn. · filed 2012-05-31

The State of Connecticut cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), nor can Department of Justice Geographical Area #4, since it is a state agency, see Komlosi v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 64 F.3d 810, 815 (2d Cir. 1995).

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state government agencies.

Dale J. Topping v.United States Department of Education · filed 2013-02-22

Further, because the U.S. Department of Education is a federal agency and the Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority is a state agency, they cannot be sued under Bivens and § 1983, respectively.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state agencies because they are not persons subject to liability under the statute.

Katz, et al. v. McVeigh, et al. · filed 2013-03-15

The plaintiffs cannot bring any claim against DCYF under § 1983 because, as a state agency, it is not a “person” subject to liability under that statute.

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

Hynoski v. Columbia County Redevelopment Authority · filed 2013-04-19

Such factual allegations bring DCED squarely within the definition of a state agency contemplated by the courts and immune from suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 treats state officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief as persons who may be sued.

Marks v. Gessler · filed 2013-08-01

Defendants concede on appeal, and we agree, that the district court erred in dismissing the $1983 claim on the basis of Will. Under Will, when sued for prospective in-junctive relief, government officials in their official capacities are "persons" under §1983.

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

Taylor v. Vineland Development School · filed 2013-08-06

Vineland Developmental, which is operated by a principal department in the executive branch of the New Jersey state government, is not a person capable of being sued within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in either their individual or official capacities when the plaintiff seeks solely prospective relief.

Worth & Co. v. Getzie · filed 2014-04-03

State officials, regardless of whether they are sued in their individual or official capacities, are "person[s]” amenable to suit under § 1983 when sued solely for prospective relief.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state or its agencies, even if the state consents, because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Sangster v. Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure · filed 2014-06-20

Even if this were a viable interpretation of KRS 311.603, however, Sangster overlooks that under the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Will, a state and its agencies cannot be sued under section 1983 even if the state consents because it is powerless to rewrite the congressional definition of “person.”

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a state agency or its employee for acts taken in an official capacity because neither is a “person” subject to damages under the section.

Beer v. Dept. Alcoholic Bev. Control CA2/1 · filed 2014-10-30

Neither a state agency nor its employee is a “person” subject to damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 based on an employee’s acts in his or her official capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state university because the university is not a person subject to liability under the statute.

Celec v. Edinboro University · filed 2015-09-18

Accordingly, Edinboro properly observes that no viable § 1983 claim can be stated against file University itself based on the alleged conduct set forth in Count V.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because it is not a “person” under the section.

Waters v. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice · filed 2016-04-14

Plaintiffs § 1983 claim against the DJJ fails for an additional reason: Plaintiff pled the claim against a sovereign state and not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat state agencies as persons subject to suit.

Clark v. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection · filed 2016-08-19

CAL FIRE is a state agency and is therefore not a person within the meaning of § 1983.

A state agency is not a “person” that can be sued under Section 1983.

Owens v. Godinez · filed 2017-06-12

But the DOC, as a state agency, is not a “per- son” that can be sued under section 1983.

State agencies are protected from suit under § 1983.

Hankerson v. Department of Risk Management · filed 2017-10-05

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hankerson’s § 1983 claims against the Department of Risk Management because “state agencies are . . . protected from suit under § 1983.” Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364 (9th Cir. 2004).

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state college because state agencies are not persons subject to suit.

Campbell v. Bristol Community College · filed 2018-01-17

Either claim would be futile, because the proposed defendant is Bristol Community College, not an individual employee of the college, and state agencies are not “persons” under either law.

States and their agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983, and the section does not abrogate their Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Walker v. Krebs · filed 2018-05-08

The State of South Dakota and its Secretary of State Office have Eleventh Amendment immunity and are not persons that could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.