42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 is the exclusive federal remedy for violations of Section 1981 rights by state actors.

Veasy v. Sheriff of Palm Beach County · filed 2018-08-14

Because § 1981 does not provide a cause of action against state actors, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the exclusive federal remedy for violation by state actors of the rights ... guaranteed under § 1981.

Section 1983 provides a damages cause of action against state actors for violations of Section 1981.

Salemi v. Colorado Public Employees · filed 2018-08-17

Ms. Salemi brought her § 1981 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides the cause of action for damages against state actors for § 1981 violations.

Section 1983 is the exclusive vehicle for enforcing Section 1981 rights against state actors.

McGuire v. Chicago Transit Authority · filed 2018-08-20

Section 1983 is the exclusive vehicle through which a plaintiff can assert deprivations of rights guaranteed by § 1981 when the claim is against state actors.

Section 1983 provides the cause of action for enforcing § 1981 rights against state actors.

Sosa v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. & Marcy Berger · filed 2019-03-25

Section 1981, however, does not contain a cause of action against state actors; these claims must be brought through § 1983.

Section 1983 is the exclusive damages remedy for Section 1981 violations by a government actor.

Langston v. Lookout Mountain Community Services · filed 2019-06-05

Having failed to sue under § 1983 to remedy her § 1981 rights, Langston may not proceed with her § 1981 claim; we affirm summary judgment to Lookout.

Section 1983 provides a way to bring a Section 1981 discrimination claim against a state actor even when the complaint does not expressly invoke Section 1983.

Husk v. Talladega, Alabama, The City of · filed 2019-06-24

Accordingly, the court construes Mr. Husk’s complaint to assert his § 1981 discrimination claim through § 1983.

Section 1983 provides the vehicle for bringing constitutional civil rights claims against state actors.

Garcia v. Curry County · filed 2019-07-17

A civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the exclusive vehicle for vindication of substantive rights under the Constitution.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for rights found elsewhere, so a claim based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause must allege intentional discrimination.

Harris v. White · filed 1979-11-02

Furthermore, because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates no substantive rights but merely authorizes a private cause of action for violations of rights found elsewhere, ... intent is most certainly an element of plaintiffs’ claim under this section insofar as it seeks to redress violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Section 1983 is the vehicle for bringing a Section 1981 claim against a state actor.

Phillips v. Birmingham, City of · filed 2019-10-15

Section 1981, however, does not provide a cause of action against state actors; instead, claims against state actors or allegations of § 1981 violations must be brought pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 is the federal remedy for enforcing § 1981 rights against state actors.

Foster v. McCabe · filed 2019-11-26

The court will dismiss the sixth cause of action insofar as it purports to be a § 1981 claim. This dismissal is without prejudice to a motion to amend to assert the racial discrimination claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 is the vehicle for bringing constitutional civil rights claims against state actors.

Rios v. Curry County Detention Center · filed 2019-12-02

A civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the exclusive vehicle for vindication of substantive rights under the Constitution.

Section 1983 remains the exclusive federal remedy for § 1981 claims against state actors after the 1991 amendments to § 1981.

Brown v. Keystone Learning Services · filed 2020-02-11

But we have held the amendments did not alter Jett’s holding that § 1983 is the “exclusive federal remedy” for § 1981 actions against state actors.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against state actors for violations of rights protected by Section 1981.

Gachette v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company · filed 2020-03-18

Gachetteʹs federal discrimination claim under § 1981 fails, because that statute ʺdoes not provide a separate right of action against state actors.ʺ ... Section 1983, however, does provide such a right of action.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against state actors for alleged constitutional deprivations, even when the events occurred on federal property.

Holliday v. Wolff · filed 2020-04-13

However, this case is more appropriately brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he seeks relief against two state actors for constitutional deprivations that occurred during his transport to/from Randolph County Jail.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for federal-rights claims against state actors.

Hess v. Penzone · filed 2020-05-01

Therefore, the Court will construe his claims as having been asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the vehicle for bringing § 1981 claims against state actors.

VINSON v. MACON-BIBB COUNTY · filed 2020-05-11

Further, § 1981 claims may only be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 given that the alleged violators, two county tax commissioners, acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides the exclusive federal damages remedy for violations of section 1981 by state actors.

Ensley v. DeSoto Independent School District · filed 2020-05-18

In order to assert a private right of action against a state actor, a plaintiff must assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which “provides the exclusive federal damages remedy for the violation of the rights guaranteed by [section] 1981.”

Section 1981 retaliation claims against state actors must be brought through Section 1983.

Lyons v. State of New York, Division of Police · filed 2020-06-02

Thus, these § 1981 claims must be construed as causes of action brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides the federal damages remedy for § 1981 violations by local government actors, and a complaint can invoke that remedy by linking the statutes in the action as a whole.

Escamilla v. Elliott · filed 2020-06-04

As stated herein, we conclude that Plaintiff-Appellant Escamilla’s August 2016 complaint sufficiently links her allegations of a violation of the rights protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to the procedural remedy provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits employment discrimination claims against state actors alongside Title VII claims, applying the same standards.

BULLOCK v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2020-07-30

Because Defendant is a state actor, “[d]iscrimination claims [against it] may be brought under either [Title VII or § 1983] or both.” ... Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim will be permitted to proceed to the same extent as her Title VII claims.

Section 1983 allows a student to vindicate Equal Protection rights when the alleged deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Arnold v. Barbers Hill Independent School District · filed 2020-08-17

The parties do not dispute that K.B. may use Section 1983 to vindicate his rights under the Equal Protection Clause, nor is there any dispute that the “color of state law” requirement is met. Such disputes would be fruitless.

Section 1983 provides the cause of action for seeking monetary damages from a state actor for an alleged constitutional violation.

Downs v. Thompson · filed 2020-08-24

Yet, the vehicle by which a plaintiff is able to obtain monetary damages against a state actor as the result of an alleged constitutional violation is Section 1983.

Section 1983 supplies the exclusive federal remedy for violations of Section 1981 by state governmental units.

Farooq v. City Of New York · filed 2020-08-25

The Section 1981 claims require little discussion, as it is well established that the statute provides no remedy against state actors. ... Accordingly, the Court “will construe” that claim “as being brought pursuant to [Section] 1983.”

Section 1983 provides the federal remedy for enforcing § 1981 rights against state actors.

Hamner v. Tuscaloosa County School System · filed 2020-09-11

TCSS is a local agency of the state and therefore is a “state actor.” Hamner must pursue her claim of retaliation against TCSS under § 1983.

Section 1983 is the vehicle for damages claims against state actors alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.

Moore v. Illinois · filed 2020-10-15

Given this, Plaintiff should have filed this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 governs constitutional claims against state actors.

Quarles v. Thole · filed 2020-11-10

Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not Bivens, because he brings them against three state actors.

Section 1983 provides the sole cause of action against state actors for alleged violations of Section 1981.

Gill v. The City Of New York · filed 2020-11-30

Section 1983 “provides the sole cause of action available against state actors alleged to have violated § 1981.”

Section 1983 is the exclusive federal remedy for a Section 1981 claim against a state actor.

Harris v. Powhatan Board of Supervisors Powhatan County, Virginia · filed 2020-12-16

Accordingly, a plaintiff cannot vindicate his § 1981 rights without pleading a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 is the exclusive remedy for a state actor’s violation of §1981; a claim against a city must allege that a city policy, custom, or final policymaker’s decision caused the violation.

Tanner v. City of Chicago · filed 2021-01-20

However, as Defendants explain, §1981 does not create a private right of action, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is “the exclusive remedy for violations of §1981 committed by state actors.” ... Thus, even assuming that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation, he must also allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the violation was caused by a City customorpolicy orby adecision by a final policymaker. See Glisson v. Ind.Dep’t of Corr., 849 F.3d 372, 379 (7th Cir. 2017). As Plaintiffmade no such allegations, the Court dismisses his §1981 claim.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to identify the federal right allegedly violated and connect that violation to the defendants' actions.

Harris v. City of Montgomery · filed 1983-05-27

Plaintiffs first contend that their complaint stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , upon which relief could be granted. ... In the present case, plaintiffs have not chosen the issues they wish to litigate. Whether or not there was a violation of federal rights here, plaintiffs make no specific connection between actions which occurred and those rights allegedly violated. Therefore, we agree with the defendants and the trial court that plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim as to these defendants upon which relief under § 1983 could be granted.

Section 1983 provides a federal remedy without requiring exhaustion of state remedies or proof of willful or specific intent to deprive federal rights.

Miller v. Depuy · filed 1969-10-01

This case does not present a problem of exhaustion of administrative remedies since under Damico, et al. v. California, et al., 389 U.S. 416, 88 S.Ct. 526, 19 L.Ed.2d 647 (1967) and Monroe v. Pope, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed.2d 492 (1961), exhaustion of state remedies is not necessary under Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... While there are no allegations of willful or specific intent to deprive plaintiff of his federal rights, it was held in Monroe v. Pope, supra, that such intent is not necessary to state a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires circumstances indicating that defendants deprived plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution or federal laws under color of law.

Posner v. New York · filed 1972-03-31

First, in my judgment, there is not expressed a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is essential in order for claim under 1983 to be valid that there be reasonably ascertainable, or at least arguably so, circumstances indicating that the defendants deprived the plaintiffs of rights secured under the constitution and laws of the United *323States and did so under color of law.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law, and a damages plaintiff need prove actual infringement of the right without proving prejudice to the underlying defense.

Rance Lee via v. Kenneth S. Cliff, Warden · filed 1972-12-06

The Act establishes two requisites for a § 1983 cause of action: (1) the conduct complained of must have subjected the complainant to a deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) the conduct complained of must have been done or caused to have been done by some person acting under the color of law. ... For recovery under § 1983, Via need only establish actual infringement(s) of his right to counsel by defendant(s) acting under color of law. There is no requirement that Via show that his “counsel’s preparedness for trial was affected in any way.”

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a constitutional or federal right caused by action under color of state law.

Hagedorn v. Union Carbide Corporation · filed 1973-08-24

As indicated in the discussion of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, the acts attributed to defendants are not violations of any judicially cognizable Federal Constitutional right. Thus, the first requisite of a section 1983 suit — Constitutional deprivation — has not been satisfied. Since no claim has been stated under section 1983, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

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

Jafree v. Scott · filed 1974-02-20

It is well settled that the requirements for a sufficient complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are that the defendant, while acting under the color of state or local law, subjected the plaintiff to a deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Section 1983 does not support a damages action without a deprivation of a constitutional right or another right secured by federal law.

Kansas Commission on Civil Rights v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · filed 1975-03-01

A fundamental requirement for sustaining .a suit for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 is that the citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof be deprived of ‘. . . any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. . . .’ Since we have determined that Santa Fe’s disclosure of the subpoenaed information would not violate the constitutional rights of its employees, there is no basis for the employees to maintain a Section 1983 .action against Santa Fe in a federal court. ... We are satisfied with the reasoning of the above citation as providing an adequate response to the defendant’s argument in this case.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of federally protected rights; mere judicial errors, without an invidiously motivated sham proceeding, do not satisfy that requirement.

Adkins v. The Honorable Robert C. Underwood · filed 1975-07-17

Even if it can be said that the Supreme Court of Illinois erred in judgment, “mere errors or irregularities * * * are not sufficient to show a purposeful conspiracy to deny * * * due process.” ... Absent such averments, the complaint does not present a deprivation of federally protected rights.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege a deprivation of constitutional rights by defendants acting under color of state law.

Blount v. Mandel · filed 1975-08-13

The test of subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is two fold. First, the complaint must allege facts which show that the acts of the defendants deprived the plaintiffs of rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and second, the complaint must show that the acts of the defendants were done under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires denial of a federally guaranteed right by someone acting under color of state law, and it can support a claim against state courts for denying federal rights, including full-faith-and-credit rights.

Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. Kiroff · filed 1975-09-02

Section 1983 requires that a plaintiff show: ... a) the denial of a federally guaranteed right, ... b) by someone acting under color of state law. ... Therefore, since “state action” under § 1983 includes judicial action, ... this Court concludes that § 1983 is an appropriate basis on which to raise a claim that the courts of a state are denying rights asserted under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and § 1738.

Section 1983 does not reach a private university's discriminatory conduct unless the complaint alleges state support or approval connected to that conduct.

Cohen v. Illinois Institute of Technology · filed 1975-11-26

Her complaint omits any allegation of state support or approval of the defendants' discriminatory conduct, and the detailed facts set forth in the complaint, even if wholly true and liberally construed in her favor, do not warrant the conclusion that I.I.T. is a public university. ... We are satisfied that Count I of the pleading before us does not state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

An action under Section 1983 is treated as a tort action.

Goff v. Jones · filed 1977-05-20

An action brought pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a tort.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law but does not itself confer federal-court jurisdiction.

Sims v. Tinney · filed 1977-09-16

This statute confers rights on the parties, but does not confer jurisdiction on the courts.

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

Wegwart v. Eagle Movers, Inc. · filed 1977-12-16

In order for the plaintiffs to successfully maintain this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they must establish that the defendants were acting under color of state law and that through their action the plaintiffs were deprived of their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs have satisfied their burden.

A § 1983 plaintiff must name and serve the parties accused of the constitutional violation before the court can grant relief directly against them.

Williams v. Greco · filed 1977-12-20

The fatal flaw in Williams’ 1983 “complaint” is his failure to pursue the proper parties. ... Since none of the parties accused of misconduct is properly before the court, “no relief which directly affects them may properly be granted.” ... The “complaint” must therefore be dismissed.

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

Gillard v. Schmidt · filed 1978-07-03

Recovery in a section 1983 action requires the presence of two elements: deprivation of a right secured by the “Constitution and laws” of the United States, and a showing that such deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires both a deprivation of a federal right and action under color of state law; officials acting in accordance with a valid state procedure are not liable for damages under it for transmitting funds.

Kanarek v. Davidson · filed 1978-09-07

In order to state a valid cause of action for damages under 42 United States Code section 1983, two elements must be present: (1) The conduct complained of must have deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the federal Constitution and (2) defendant’s action must have been taken under color of state law. ... We conclude that inasmuch as the sheriff’s deputies acted in accordance with a valid state procedure for the collection of jeopardy income tax assessments, they cannot be held liable for damages under section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights Act in transmitting the funds to the Franchise Tax Board.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the federal Constitution and laws.

City of Mason v. Banks · filed 1979-03-12

The essential requirements of a § 1983 action are that the conduct complained of was engaged in under color of state law and that such conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the federal constitution and laws.

Section 1983 relief requires proof that a defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutionally protected right.

Thompson v. Ray D. Bass, Etc., Dan H. Turner, Etc. · filed 1980-05-14

To be entitled to section 1983 relief, a plaintiff must prove that (1) a defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived him of a constitutionally protected right.

Section 1983 requires proof that a defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a federal right; once a legitimate discharge reason is shown, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving improper motive.

Hodges v. Tomberlin · filed 1981-03-15

To recover under § 1983, plaintiffs must demonstrate that one or more of the defendants acted to deprive them of rights guaranteed under the laws and constitution of the United States and that these defendants were then operating under color of state law. ... Thus plaintiffs may recover under § 1983 if it is shown that union activity played an impermissible role in their terminations. ... Under § 1983 much as with the Railway Labor Act, once the employer has established a legitimate basis for terminating the plaintiffs, plaintiffs have the ultimate burden of establishing that an improper motive, in fact, led to their discharge.

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

Stevens v. James C. Hunt, M. D. · filed 1981-04-20

It is well established that in order to prevail in a 1983 action plaintiffs have the burden to show that they were deprived of a constitutional right and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law. ... There is no dispute that defendants were acting under color of state law. The issue to be decided is whether plaintiffs were deprived of a constitutional right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant was a person acting under color of law who deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution and laws.

Pinckney v. County of Northampton · filed 1981-04-21

The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides in pertinent part that ... To recover, plaintiff must show ... that defendant was a “person”, who acted “under color of law” to deprive plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution and laws.

Section 1983 does not make every violation of state law by a state official actionable; the violation must also infringe a federally protected right.

Satterfield v. Clark · filed 1981-05-29

Rather, the Court finds that even if there has been some irregularity or violation of Alabama law, the infractions involved do not rise to the level necessary to state a cause of action under Section 1983.

Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights and requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Griffin v. Pate · filed 1981-11-27

Furthermore, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 standing alone, does not create any substantive rights. ... “In order to state a claim for relief under § 1983, all that a plaintiff need allege is (1) that some person deprived him of a Federal right and (2) that this person acted under color of state law.”

Section 1983 permits damages for a deprivation of constitutional rights, so a plaintiff who establishes no such deprivation cannot recover under it.

Crow v. Gullet · filed 1982-06-25

Having failed to establish a deprivation of their constitutional rights, plaintiffs’ claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is also denied.

To obtain damages under Section 1983 for officials' failure to protect a prisoner from inmate violence, a plaintiff must show deliberate indifference, meaning intent or reckless disregard, rather than mere negligence.

Ronald Lee Roy Branchcomb v. Lou Brewer, James Menke, and Charles Wilkens · filed 1982-07-14

This is an action for money damages by an individual against three named defendants, and the' plaintiff, if he is to succeed, must show that Lou Brewer, James Menke, and Charles Wilkens acted not simply carelessly, but with reckless disregard of his right to personal safety.

Section 1983 does not cover a claim that is merely contractual and lacks constitutional dimension.

Flood v. City of East Orange · filed 1982-07-20

At most, the claim is no more than a claim of breach of contract to sell the land at the price bid at the auction. Since the City was not free to sell the land, Flood had the right to reject title as unmarketable and to refuse to proceed with closing. In the absence of any covenants to survive closing, his acceptance of a bargain and sale deed which conveyed nothing cannot put the City to any greater obligation than it had before closing. The claim is therefore not of constitutional dimension, nor is it within the scope of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not make officers liable for merely failing to notice that an arrest warrant's description does not match the person arrested.

Johnson v. Officer J. Miller, Officer Bruce Sutcliff and First National Bank of Chicago · filed 1982-06-07

This is not enough to bring section 1983 into play.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and caused an injury to constitutional or federal rights.

Pao v. Holy Redeemer Hospital · filed 1982-08-27

In order to substantiate a claim based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant (1) acted under color of state law, and (2) caused an injury to plaintiff’s constitutional or federal rights. ... Because the amended complaint makes no allegations sufficient to warrant a finding that defendants have acted under color of state law, Dr. Pao’s claim based on § 1983 must fail. ... Since the amended complaint has stated no set of facts which would entitle the plaintiff to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this count will be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 reaches conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law; systematic municipal withholding of a state-created right to immediate payment qualifies as a Fourteenth Amendment deprivation.

Evans v. City of Chicago · filed 1982-09-27

The defendants do not dispute that they committed the relevant conduct under color of state law. ... They do dispute the other essential element of a § 1983 action: that the conduct deprived the plaintiffs of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Upon review of the relevant statutes and decisions, we agree with the district court that under Illinois law, if the City has not invoked § 9-104(b) before the end of the fiscal year following the year in which the tort judgment became final, the tort judgment holder may legitimately claim entitlement to immediate payment. Thus, at least in that situation, the right to immediate payment of a tort judgment against a municipal corporation becomes a property right under Illinois law. ... Delay beyond that time although only a temporary and nonfinal withholding of the plaintiffs’ property is a “deprivation” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff pursuing a due process claim to allege and prove a deprivation of a liberty interest.

Flowers v. Coughlin · filed 1982-11-22

In the present case, in order for the plaintiff to prevail on his due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must allege and prove a deprivation of a liberty interest.

A § 1983 claim fails when the plaintiff has not been deprived of a property right.

Direct Mail Services, Inc. v. State of Colo. · filed 1983-01-10

I find that there has been no deprivation of any property right on which to base plaintiffs’ § 1983 and § 1985 claims.

Section 1983 provides a remedy only when a person causes injury by abridging a constitutional or statutory right, privilege, or immunity, and it cannot be used to obtain release from incarceration.

Scot v. Merola · filed 1983-01-13

Even were the State before the Court, plaintiff’s request must fail because a section 1983 suit cannot be used to effect a release from incarceration. ... In order to state a claim under section 1983 it must appear that a person caused injury to the plaintiff by abridging a “right, privilege, or immunity] secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States.

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

Salerno v. O'ROURKE · filed 1983-01-18

To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong standard: first, that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and second, that the defendants who allegedly deprived him of that right were acting under color of state law at the time the alleged constitutional violation occurred.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a state official acting under color of law violated a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest or a federal statutory right.

Schreiber v. Jeter · filed 1982-05-13

Not every legally cognizable injury which may have been inflicted by a state official acting under color of law establishes a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. ... Because the complaint alleges no facts which would show that Schreiber’s constitutionally protected liberty or property interests or federal statutory rights have been violated, we decide that no constitutional tort has been pleaded.

Section 1983 requires both deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action under color of state law.

Bier v. Paul D. Fleming and Charles I. Alatis · filed 1983-09-19

To be entitled to relief under § 1983, plaintiff must establish that defendant deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of law and deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Charles W. Keney, M.D. v. R.C. Derbyshire, M.D. · filed 1983-10-04

In any § 1983 action, the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements of a § 1983 claim are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Colorado State Fair & Industrial Exposition Commission · filed 1983-12-05

To state a claim for relief under section 1983, a complainant need allege only (1) that some person deprived complainant of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the federal constitution; and (2) that such person acted under color of state law.

A section 1983 claim based on the Fourteenth Amendment must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law, and it raises the same issues as the underlying Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Blanton v. Griel Memorial Psychiatric Hospital · filed 1985-04-29

Claims under this Section must allege that some person, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The rights relied upon by plaintiff in his complaint are those guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment so that his claim under § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment raise the same issues.

A § 1983 claim requires a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Thompson v. The Flint Journal Newspaper, Werner Vett Joseph Wagar, Daniel E. Richards Lou Giampetroni Ray Step · filed 1985-04-30

A claim under that section requires that the plaintiff allege violation of a federal right by some person acting under color of state law.

A § 1983 plaintiff must prove a deprivation of a federal right, causation by the defendants, and action under color of state law.

American Conveyor Corp. v. Municipality of Guanica · filed 1985-07-18

To maintain a cause of action under Section 1983 a plaintiff must plead and prove: 1) that he has been deprived of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution, laws or treaties of the United States; 2) that the defendants subjected plaintiff to this deprivation or caused him to be so subjected; and 3) that the defendants acted under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state.

A § 1983 claim requires both action under color of state law and deprivation of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution.

Stephenson v. Esquivel · filed 1985-07-30

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs must show two essential elements: (1) that the defendants acted under color of state law, and (2) that the defendants caused them to be deprived of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the United States.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws.

Metcalf v. Long · filed 1985-08-14

In any section 1983 action, the initial inquiry must focus on whether two essential elements are present: first, whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and second, whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A § 1983 claim requires a deprivation of federal rights by persons acting under color of state law.

Stathas v. Kaliope Stathas Trezos, Magdalina Stathas Claoudatos, and Sapho Stathas · filed 1985-08-23

He has not alleged a deprivation of federal rights by persons acting under color of state law as required to establish jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

A § 1983 action requires conduct under color of state law that deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution.

Holland v. Breen · filed 1985-10-30

[I]n any § 1983 action the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements to a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a constitutional deprivation committed under color of state law.

Greenwell v. Shillito's Department Store M. Crich, Store Detective and Stiano, Store Detective · filed 1985-12-04

To sustain an action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 plaintiff must plead and demonstrate factually that a constitutional deprivation has occurred under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a right protected by the Constitution or federal law.

Buranen v. Hanna · filed 1985-12-05

In order to establish a cause of action based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs must show that defendants acted under color of state law and that the defendants’ conduct deprived plaintiffs of a right protected by the United States Constitution or federal law.

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

Brannum v. Wilson · filed 1985-12-05

To sustain an action brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, plaintiff must factually plead and demonstrate that he has been deprived of a constitutional right and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.

A Section 1983 employment-discrimination plaintiff must prove action under color of state law and a resulting deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Van Houdnos v. Evans · filed 1986-01-21

In order to establish liability for sex discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege with clarity and prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that “the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) [that] this conduct deprived a person of rights, privilege, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

A Section 1983 claimant must establish that defendants acting under color of state law deprived the claimant of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by federal law.

Powell v. Department of Corrections, State of Okl. · filed 1986-02-20

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiff must establish that Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A Section 1983 plaintiff must show conduct under color of law, deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution, and factual causation by the defendant.

Jones v. City of Chicago · filed 1986-03-24

The statutory prerequisites under § 1983 are first, that the alleged conduct must have been under color of law, and second, that the plaintiff must have been subjected to a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant was the cause in fact of plaintiff’s deprivation.

A § 1983 complaint must allege both deprivation of a federal right and that the person responsible acted under color of state law.

Christian Populist Party v. Secretary of State · filed 1987-01-12

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs must allege, first, facts that indicate that some person has deprived them of a federal right and, second, that the person who deprived them of that right did so under the color of state law.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Lincoln Carter AKA Alphonso Provens v. Cincinnati Magazine Co. State of Ohio · filed 1987-01-26

In a Sec. 1983 action, two elements are essential: (1) the conduct complained of must be committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct must deprive the litigant of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law and deprivation of a federal constitutional right, privilege, or immunity.

Brekke v. Volcker · filed 1987-02-03

Two elements are necessary to establish a cause of action under those sections: (1) the conduct complained of was engaged under color of state law, and (2) the conduct subjected the plaintiffs to the deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by federal law or the Constitution.

Lombardo v. Oppenheimer · filed 1987-02-23

In any § 1983 action the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements to a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A successful § 1983 sex-discrimination claim requires state action, deprivation of a constitutional right, proximate causation, and discriminatory intent.

Webb v. City Of Chester · filed 1987-03-17

A successful section 1983 claim requires plaintiff to prove (1) defendants acted under color of state law, (2) defendants' actions deprived plaintiff of her rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution, and (3) defendants' conduct proximately caused plaintiff's deprivation. ... Moreover, plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants acted with discriminatory intent.

A § 1983 plaintiff must prove conduct under color of state law and a resulting deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Medina v. Delgado · filed 1987-04-13

To prevail in an action brought under section 1983, two essential elements must be proven: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person or persons acting under color of state law; and (2) that this conduct deprives a person or persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution or law of the United States.

A § 1983 plaintiff must show that the abridgment of a liberty, property, or constitutional right occurred without due process of law.

Blake v. Lang · filed 1987-05-08

As stated in ... in order to maintain an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it must first be demonstrated that the liberty, property or constitutional right abridged was without due process of law.

A § 1983 plaintiff alleging violation of a federal housing statute bears the burden of proving the underlying statutory violation as an element of the claim.

Gholston v. Housing Authority · filed 1987-06-09

Rather, the appellants had the burden of proving a violation of section 1437n(a) as one element of their section 1983 claim, and had the opportunity to obtain rebuttal evidence from the MHA’s files in this regard.

A § 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law, deprivation of a federal right, and proximate causation of the plaintiff’s injury.

Anderson v. University of Wisconsin · filed 1987-08-11

To state a cause of action based upon § 1983, plaintiff must prove (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; (2) that this conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (3) that the defendahts’ acts were the proximate ... cause of the injuries and damages sustained by the plaintiff.

A valid § 1983 claim requires both deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action under color of state law.

Maxberry v. The Eastern Plasma of Ohio the Plasma Alliance of Kentucky Commonwealth Plasma (Alpha) Kentucky · filed 1987-08-11

First, in regard to the claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, plaintiff can state a valid cause of action only if he can plead both that he was deprived of a right or interest secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States and that defendants deprived him of the right or interest while acting under color of state law.

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

Wright v. Young · filed 1987-08-19

A plaintiff must plead and prove two elements to establish a right to relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983: "(1) that he has been deprived of a right 'secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States; and (2) that the defendant deprived him of this right while acting under color of [state] law."

A § 1983 plaintiff must show action under color of state law and a resulting federal constitutional or statutory violation; liability cannot rest on respondeat superior.

Robinson v. Washington County · filed 1987-08-21

In order to establish a claim under section 1983, the plaintiff must show that the alleged misconduct was committed by persons acting under color of state law, and that their conduct resulted in a federal constitutional or statutory violation. ... The United States Supreme Court has made clear, however, that section 1983 will not support a claim based on a ... respondeat superior ... theory of liability.

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both action under color of state law and deprivation of a right protected by the Constitution.

Drs. Steuer & Latham, P.A. v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1987-08-31

In order to prevail on this claim, plaintiffs must show that defendants were acting under color of state law and that defendants’ conduct deprived plaintiffs of rights, privileges or immunities that are protected by the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 permits a plaintiff who has already been sued under a challenged state statute to bring a constitutional challenge to that statute.

Haddad v. Wall · filed 2000-08-08

However, this is not a situation where action under a statute is merely threatened or is still pending. Wall has already sued Haddad for defamation pursuant to Section 47.5 in small claims court and has been awarded a judgment of $5,000 in damages, plus costs and attorney’s fees. Therefore, Haddad may challenge the constitutionality of Section 47.5 pursuant to Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits a suit against a city and its officials for alleged deprivations of federal rights under color of state law.

Doe v. McConn · filed 1980-04-03

This suit is properly brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and its jurisdictional implementation, 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

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

Olson v. Equitable Life Assurance Co. · filed 2004-05-26

To establish a right to relief under 42 USC § 1983, claimants must allege facts which show that someone acting under color of state law or authority deprived them of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

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

CN Ex Rel. JN v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. · filed 2004-06-03

A Section 1983 action has two essential elements: 1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) that the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

McClung v. CAMP COUNTY, TEX. · filed 1986-01-27

The two (2) essential elements of any section 1983 action are: 1) the complained of conduct must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) this conduct must have deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A state administrative proceeding is not part of a § 1983 action merely because the plaintiff was required to attend it.

Leonard J. Brooks, M.D. v. Lamar Alexander, Governor of the State of Tennessee, and William Leech, Attorney General of t · filed 1986-12-09

We reject plaintiff's claim that because he was required to appear before the Board of Medical Advisers the administrative proceeding was required for the section 1983 suit.

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

Costello v. Town of Fairfield · filed 1987-02-12

To state a claim under section 1983, a complaint must allege that the defendant deprived plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that such deprivation was committed by persons acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 permits an action based on an official's failure to perform an affirmative duty when that failure substantially contributes to a constitutional liberty or property violation and the official acts with deliberate indifference.

Kathy Jo Taylor, a Minor, by and Through David S. Walker, Jr., Attorney at Law as Guardian Ad Litem v. Ledbette · filed 1987-06-09

We address first the requirements for an action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For a section 1983 action to arise where an official is charged with failing to exercise an affirmative duty, two requirements must be satisfied. First, the failure to act must have been a substantial factor leading to the violation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). Second, the official having the responsibility to act must display deliberate indifference. Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980). These two requirements have been adequately pleaded in this case.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a person acting under color of state law when that conduct deprives someone of a federal or state constitutional right.

Young v. Wall · filed 2005-03-05

In order to maintain an action under § 1983, the conduct of which Young complains must be committed by a person acting under the color of state law and the conduct must have deprived him of a federal or state constitutional right.

Section 1983 lets a person sue when state actors deprive the person of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Drogan v. Ward · filed 1987-12-17

To state a cause of action under 42 U.S. C. § 1983, Drogan must allege that acting under color of state law the respondents deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a remedy when a person acting under color of state law deprives someone of rights secured by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Shaw v. COOSA COUNTY COM'N. · filed 2005-10-26

This statute provides a remedy when a person acting under color of state law [10] deprives a plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a constitutional or federal-rights violation by a defendant acting under color of official authority.

Reichley v. Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture · filed 2005-11-02

Accordingly, there can be no cause of action under § 1983 absent violation of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. The defendant must also act under color of official authority.

Section 1983 permits a person to sue for deprivation of a constitutional right by someone acting under color of state law.

Harmon v. Delaware Secretary of State · filed 2005-11-08

To state a viable § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing a deprivation of a constitutional right, privilege or immunity by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 allows a person to sue a state actor for depriving the person of rights secured by federal law.

Harris v. Olszewski · filed 2006-03-21

We agree that Medicaid's freedom-of-choice provision creates a private right that may be enforced under § 1983.

Section 1983 allows a claim when a person acting under color of state law deprives another of rights secured by federal law.

Guajardo v. McAdams · filed 1972-09-25

There is also no question that the instant case fulfills all the qualifications for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the essential elements being, “(1) that the conduct complained of was by a person acting under color of state statutes or local law, custom or usage, and (2) while so acting, deprived another of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Palacios v. Foltz, 441 F.2d 1196, 1197 (10th Cir. 1971).

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

Shirden v. Cordero · filed 2007-09-21

A plaintiff asserting civil rights violations under § 1983 must establish that the defendant acted under color of state law to deprive him or her of a right secured by the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of rights secured elsewhere in federal law but creates no substantive rights of its own.

Sanders v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2007-10-02

Section 1983 does not create substantive rights; it provides only remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution or federal laws.

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

Whitworth v. Regents of University of California · filed 2008-04-18

To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that a person acting under the color of state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the United States Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 provides a remedy when a person acting under color of state law deprives another of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws.

Hout v. City of Mansfield · filed 2008-04-23

However, even if properly pled in conjunction, the Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim is inadequate because the Plaintiffs have not alleged, nor have they provided evidence, that they were deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United states, a deprivation which was caused by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right, privilege, or immunity.

Bernstein v. New York · filed 2008-08-08

In order to state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must show that the conduct complained of was committed by a person or entity acting under color of state law, and that the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish standing and a constitutional violation to maintain a claim.

Lepley v. Dresser · filed 1988-01-08

In order to maintain a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, plaintiff must have standing to seek relief. ... In order to maintain a Section 1983 claim, plaintiff must first establish that a violation of constitutional dimension occurred. ... Failure to establish a constitutional violation is fatal to plaintiffs claim.

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

Collier v. Austin Peay State University · filed 2009-03-26

The Reports and Recommendations (Docket Nos. 86, 87) are ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. ... Thus, in order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

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

Mayberry v. Spicer · filed 1992-11-24

To maintain a action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, two essential elements must be pled and proved. First, the conduct complained of must be committed by a person acting under color of state law, and second, the conduct must deprive the person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 creates a private right of action for damages and injunctive relief when state or local actors deprive a person of constitutional or statutory rights.

Williams v. Alabama State University · filed 1994-10-12

Section 1983 creates a private right of action for damages and injunctive relief against individuals and governmental bodies whose conduct under the color of state or local law deprives a plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities “secured by the Constitution or laws.”

Section 1983 authorizes relief for violations of federally protected rights by someone acting under color of state law but creates no rights itself.

Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, Va. · filed 2010-01-14

The statute, which authorizes a court to grant relief when a party’s federally protected rights have been violated by a state or local official or other person who acted under color of state law, does not itself create any rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of rights established elsewhere rather than creating substantive rights itself.

Powell v. Nunley · filed 2010-01-14

Section 1983 does not create substantive rights, but merely provides a remedy for deprivations of rights that are established elsewhere.

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

Zinnia I. Chen v. Hon. Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. · filed 2010-02-01

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

Section 1983 does not make simple negligence actionable and requires conscious or callous indifference to a prisoner's rights.

Smith v. Regional Director of Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2010-02-10

Thus, simple negligence is not actionable under § 1983, and a plaintiff must allege “a conscious or callous indifference to a prisoner’s rights.” Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982).

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Rodriguez-Torres v. GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT BANK · filed 2010-02-23

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) creates a remedy for those who are deprived of the rights, privileges, or immunities granted to them by the Constitution or laws of the Unites States. See Rodríguez-García v. Municipality of Caguas, 354 F.3d 91, 99 (1st Cir.2004) (citing Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979)). In order to succeed in a Section 1983 claim, Plaintiffs must prove that someone has deprived them of a right protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States and that the perpetrator acted under color of state law. Cruz-Erazo v. Rivera-Montañez, 212 F.3d 617, 621 (1st Cir.2000).

Section 1983 cannot be used to bring a claim based on section 1396a(a)(17) when that provision provides no private right of action.

Cota v. Maxwell-Jolly · filed 2010-02-24

While it is true that Watson precludes Plaintiffs from bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on section 1396a(a)(17), it does not prevent them from stating a claim under the Supremacy Clause.

Section 1983 requires deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law and permits direct liability for officers who fail to intervene during a constitutional violation.

Terry v. Bailey · filed 2010-04-27

“In order to prevail on a civil rights action under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that he or she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law,” that is, a person who “acts with authority possessed by virtue of his employment with the state.” ... Prison correctional officers may be held directly liable under § 1983 if they fail or refuse to intervene when a ... constitutional violation occurs in their presence.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations of federal rights committed under color of state law.

Baumgardner v. Town of Ruston · filed 2010-04-28

“Section 1983 provides remedies for deprivations of rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States when the deprivation takes place under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead and prove that defendants acting under color of state or District of Columbia law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Rice v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-06-07

To prevail in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendants, acting under color of state or D.C. law, deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

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

Niarchos v. City of Beverly · filed 2011-07-26

In order to prevail on a § 1983 claim, Niarchos must show that the individual defendants 1) deprived Danielle of a federally protected right; and 2) were acting under the color of state law.

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

Trapp v. Clarke · filed 2012-09-28

An action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 will succeed if the facilities, under color of state law, deprived the inmates of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution or federal law. ... Because the tobacco ban and the SBCC sweat lodge closure deprived the inmates of rights secured by the First Amendment and the RLUIPA, the inmates are entitled to prevail on their cause of action under §1983.

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

Ridge v. Campbell · filed 2013-10-25

Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights, but merely a method to vindicate violations of federal law committed by state actors. ... To establish a claim under this section, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: 1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) said conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Peraica v. Riverside-Brookside High School District No. 208 · filed 2013-10-31

Here, plaintiffs’ second amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish liability under section 1983 because it fails to allege any recognizable violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. We hold that plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action under section 1983 and the trial court correctly dismissed their complaint.

Section 1983 lets a plaintiff sue for deprivation of a constitutional or federal right under color of state law.

Logan v. Hall · filed 2015-03-20

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant deprived him of a right secured under the Constitution or federal law, and (2) the deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides a method to vindicate federal rights against persons acting under color of state law.

Transitional Services of New York for Long Island, Inc. v. New York State Office of Mental Health · filed 2015-03-20

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, (2) by a person acting under the color of state law.

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

Berkery v. Wissahickon School Board · filed 2015-03-27

In general, to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and/or laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides a procedure for redress when state actors deprive a person of rights secured by the Constitution.

Bartels v. Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor · filed 2015-03-31

Section 1983 establishes liability for deprivation under the color of state law “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “The purpose of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails.”

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for deprivation of federal rights and requires a defendant's causal responsibility for the deprivation.

Duehning v. Aurora East Unified School School District 131 · filed 2015-04-20

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, under color of state law, “subjects, - or causes to be subjected, any citizen' of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 • U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 does not provide substantive rights; rather, “it is a means for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.” Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 356 (7th Cir.1997) (citing Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979)). Individual liability under section'-1983 must be based upon a finding that the defendant caused the alleged constitutional deprivation. Palmer v. Marion Cnty., 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir.2003). In -other words, “[a]n official causes a constitutional violation if he sets in motion a series of events that defendant knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to deprive plaintiff of constitutional rights.” Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Foster, 657 F.3d 463, 487 (7th. Cir.2011), (internal ¡quotation - marks and citation omitted).

Section 1983 provides a remedy against a person acting under color of state law who deprives someone of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Harris v. Goderick · filed 2015-04-22

A claimant is entitled to relief under § 1983 if he can prove that a person acting under color of state law committed an act that deprived him of some right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Accordingly, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to Harris, his complaint did not allege facts sufficient to support a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution against any named defendant.

Section 1983 creates a federal cause of action for deprivation of federal rights under color of state law.

Shepard v. Hansford County · filed 2015-05-22

“Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law, of a citizen’s rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 132, 114 S.Ct. 2068, 129 L.Ed.2d 93 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts that show that he has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law. See Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978); Cornish v. Corr. Servs. Corp., 402 F.3d 545, 549 (5th Cir.2005). Here, Plaintiffs allege that Brenda Vera and Hansford County violated Lacy Cuccaro’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide Lacy with adequate protection from her known suicidal tendencies while she was a pretrial detainee at the Hans-ford County jail. Defendants seek summary judgment on the grounds that (A) Brenda Yera is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity; and (B) Hansford County is not liable for the alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.

Section 1983 permits claims against persons whose actions under color of state law deprive others of rights secured by federal law.

United States v. Washington · filed 1985-12-31

Thus, while neither the United States nor the intervening tribes pleaded these claims specifically under § 1983, ... the allegations satisfy the requirements for pleading claims of deprivation of statutorily-secured rights under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides relief for constitutional deprivations by persons acting under color of state law and requires a plaintiff to establish a violated right and the officer’s inability to reasonably believe the conduct was lawful.

Faust v. State · filed 2015-12-09

To obtain relief pursuant to Section 1983, a plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a right under the Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting under color of state law. ... If a plaintiff shows that he had a clearly established right that was violated, the next inquiry is whether a reasonable official could have believed his conduct was lawful.

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

Daniczek v. Spencer · filed 2016-01-11

“Section 1983, which imposes civil liability on any person who, under color of law, deprives another person of federal constitutional or statutory rights, is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.”

Section 1983 does not provide relief for a state tort claim absent a constitutional due process interest and conduct that shocks the conscience.

Ramos Piñero v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2005-03-02

Foremost, the deceased in this case was never under the “custody” of the Municipality. As such, he did not have a constitutional due process interest at the time of his death. Second, any reckless indifference and/or gross negligence by the Municipality in this case does not rise to the level of “shocking to the conscience” necessary to invoke Section 1983.

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

Lozano v. City of Hazleton · filed 2007-07-26

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

Section 1983 provides a cause of action to redress deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law, but it does not itself create substantive rights.

Boyd v. TOWN OF RANSOM CANYON, TEX. · filed 2008-04-10

To establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that a person acting under the color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. ... The parties appearing to be in agreement that no § 1983/PRB-l claims are cognizable under the relevant case law, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs’ claims asserted as § 1983/PRB-l are DISMISSED.

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

Dennis v. Warden, Ware State Prison · filed 2016-04-22

To succeed on a § 1983 action, “a plaintiff must show that he or she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege that a person acting under state or District of Columbia law deprived the plaintiff of constitutional or federal rights.

Young v. American Legion · filed 2016-04-26

To state a claim under § 1983, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to show that a person acting under color of State or District of Columbia law committed an action which deprived the plaintiff of rights protected under the United States Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 provides a civil remedy for deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state or District of Columbia law.

Robinson v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-08-02

To state a claim under § 1983, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to show that a person acting under color of State or District of Columbia law committed an action which deprived the plaintiff of rights protected under the United States Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 requires a claimant to show that the challenged conduct was committed under color of state law and deprived the claimant of a constitutional right.

Thomas v. State, Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Health, Food Safety & Sanitation · filed 2016-08-26

“To sustain an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [a claimant] must show: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.”

Section 1983 provides no substantive rights; a plaintiff must establish a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Swallow v. Corizon, LLC · filed 2020-06-03

In reply, defendants correctly argue that § 1983 provides no substantive rights, and that to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish, inter alia, the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.