42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Kunkel v. Stockwell · filed 1995-05-11

Kunkel cannot obtain monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a prosecutor sued in his official capacity.

Walker v. Stephen Lautner Kyle Kigar James Wagester James v. Young Donald A. Teeple · filed 1995-06-14

Defendant Young is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law to the extent that he is sued for monetary damages in his official capacity under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

An official-capacity claim for monetary damages under § 1983 against a state official is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Braswell v. Ellis · filed 1995-07-19

Thus, a suit against a state official in his official capacity for monetary damages is a suit against the state and is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 allows an official-capacity claim against county officers to proceed as a claim against the county, so the officers need not remain separate official-capacity defendants when the county is already sued.

Jackson v. Marion County Sheriff's Dept. · filed 1995-09-19

We find no error in the magistrate judge's reasoning. Although the suit against the officers in their official capacities was dropped, Jackson was still able to pursue the identical claim against Marion County.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer as a claim against the municipality, so duplicative claims against the officer may be dismissed.

Spacetown Auto Body v. Derry · filed 1996-02-14

Because the court will consider all "official capacity" claims to be claims against the Town of Derry, the court will dismiss Counts I and III against Chief Garone acting in his "official capacity" as duplicative of plaintiff's claims asserted in Count X against the Town of Derry.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a local government official duplicates an identical claim against the government entity.

Johnson v. Houston Independent School District · filed 1996-05-13

Because the claims asserted against Petruzielo and Bryant in their official capacities are actually claims against HISD, and because plaintiffs have asserted identical claims against HISD, the claims asserted against Petruzielo and Bryant in their official capacities duplicate those asserted against HISD.

A Section 1983 official-capacity claim requires an allegation that a government policy, custom, or practice caused the deprivation of a constitutional right.

Cooper v. Smith · filed 1996-08-27

Thus, to maintain an official capacity claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a policy, custom, or practice of the government entity deprived the plaintiff of a constitutionally protected interest.

Section 1983 money-damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment because they are claims against the state.

Garcia v. Burdine · filed 1997-04-14

As to the official capacity claims, the district court correctly noted that an action for money damages against a state official acting in his or her official capacity constitutes a claim against the state itself and is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A plaintiff seeking damages under § 1983 from a state official must clearly plead that the official is sued in an individual capacity to avoid Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court.

MacKlin v. Huffman · filed 1997-08-25

The Court finds that the claim against Huffman fails to comply with the Sixth Circuit’s holding in Wells, which requires a plaintiff to state on the face of the complaint in an unambiguous manner the capacity in which a state official is being sued. The complaint states only that Huffman, who was Macklin’s supervisor, is being sued for damages.

In an official-capacity § 1983 suit, a county official who independently chooses a policy under discretionary state authority acts for the county and cannot claim Eleventh Amendment immunity as a state official.

Brotherton v. Cleveland · filed 1999-04-14

Dr. Cleveland, acting without state compulsion, chose to harvest corneas, and he selected a policy for Hamilton County; he thus acted as an agent of Hamilton County, not of Ohio. Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment does not prevent the district court from exercising jurisdiction over Brotherton’s claims against Dr. Cleveland in his official capacity as coroner of Hamilton County.

A § 1983 complaint must allege facts stating a claim against a sheriff in the official and individual capacities in which he is sued.

Babineaux v. Thomas · filed 1999-08-27

Because Babineaux failed to allege facts that stated a claim against Thomas, both in his official and individual capacities, see Monell v. Department of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Lozano v. Smith, 718 F.2d 756, 768 (5th Cir. 1983), the district court properly granted Thomas’s motion to dismiss.

Monetary damages claims under § 1983 against state correctional officers in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Edney v. Karrigan · filed 1999-10-14

Additionally, though none of the parties have addressed the issue, Edney's suit for monetary damages against White and Kerri-gan in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A plaintiff who sues a defendant under § 1983 only in his professional capacity cannot first assert a personal claim against him in a summary judgment motion.

McDaniel v. Princeton City School District Board of Education · filed 1999-11-13

However, as for Plaintiffs request that Defendant Baker be judged individually liable, the Court notes that Plaintiffs Complaint asserts claims against Defendant Baker in his professional capacity only. Therefore, we agree with Defendants that Plaintiff cannot bring a personal claim against Defendant Baker for the first time in a motion for summary judgment.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials sued in their official capacities, but not other relief against them in that capacity.

Rapkin v. Rocque · filed 2000-05-15

Therefore, the Court dismisses all claims against defendants in their official capacities except those seeking prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits an individual-capacity claim against officials when the complaint, read in context, sufficiently alleges that they acted under color of law in their individual capacities.

Charfauros v. Board of Elections · filed 2001-05-10

We therefore hold that Appellees successfully alleged a § 1983 complaint against the Board members in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity claims against board members when the complaint, read in context, alleges they acted under color of law as individual members.

Charfauros v. Board of Elections · filed 2001-07-06

We therefore hold that Appellees successfully alleged a§§ 1983 com plaint against the Board members in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against a North Carolina sheriff are barred by the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Henderson Amusement, Inc. v. Good · filed 2001-11-02

A sheriff in North Carolina is a state officer, not a county officer, and any Section 1983 official-capacity claim is barred, inasmuch as a suit against a state actor is a suit against the state, which enjoys immunity under the eleventh amendment.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against a municipal officer may be dismissed as redundant when the municipality is also a defendant.

Nelson v. City of Panama City, Florida · filed 2001-12-03

Defendants’ next assertion is that the official capacity claims against Officer Brannon should be dismissed as redundant to the claims against the City itself. This is correct.

Section 1983 does not allow a monetary damages claim against a state judge in his official capacity when Eleventh Amendment immunity shields the judge.

Mitrano v. Martin · filed 2002-01-22

Consequently, plaintiff cannot bring a § 1983 claim for monetary damages against the state judge in his official capacity because the judge is shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a Georgia sheriff in his official capacity concerning use-of-force policies are treated as claims against the county and are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Manders v. Lee · filed 2002-03-14

Nonetheless, our binding precedent requires us to conclude that Manders's remaining § 1983 claims against Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity are claims against Clinch County and not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 allows suits against state officials in their official capacities for injunctive relief despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Nanda v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Bellur Prabhakar, Gerald Moss · filed 2002-09-17

We agree with the district court that, under § 1983, a suit against state officials in their official capacity limited to injunc-tive relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 complaint that does not specify an individual-capacity claim against a public official is treated as a claim against the government entity alone.

Corpus v. Bennett · filed 2002-11-15

Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that the complaint failed to specify that either Bennett or Smith was being sued in his individual capacity for violations of Corpus’s constitutional rights. As such those claims were made against the County alone.

Section 1983 bars monetary damages claims against a state police agency and state troopers sued in their official capacities.

Banks v. Kentucky State Police · filed 2003-01-31

To the extent that Banks reasserts claims against the Kentucky State Police and the named state police troopers in their official capacities, his claims for monetary damages are barred.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities may seek injunctive relief, but the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary relief.

Rollins v. Lewis · filed 2003-05-07

Although the Eleventh Amendment bars Rollins’s claims for monetary relief against the defendants in their official capacities, ... it does not bar his official-capacity claims for injunctive relief.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Cook v. Arkansas State Police · filed 2003-05-23

Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Cook stated only official-capacity claims for damages against defendant officials and that such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 official capacity suits against state corrections officials are suits against their employing agency and are barred in federal court when that agency has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Dennison v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2003-06-09

Official capacity suits are nothing more than suits against an official’s employing agency. ... In this case, the employing agency is the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, which is immune from suit in federal court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. ... Accordingly, we will grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Dennison’s section 1983 official capacity suits.

Section 1983 claims against state officials for alleged constitutional violations in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Futura Development of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico · filed 2003-06-26

Taking into account these principles, Plaintiffs claims under section 1983 for violation of its constitutional rights by the Defendants acting in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A Section 1983 plaintiff cannot recover money damages from a state official sued only in her official capacity; the course of proceedings must give sufficient notice to hold her individually liable.

Rodgers v. Elizabeth Banks · filed 2003-11-05

Having applied the course of proceedings test, we hold that insufficient indicia exists in the original complaint and amended complaint suggesting that Defendant was on notice that she was being sued in her individual capacity. Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs suit to the extent that she seeks money damages.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against state officers in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment unless the state waives its immunity.

Louis David Johnson, Jr. v. Unknown Dellatifa (03-1497/1880) Unknown Carline (03-1506/1865) S. Powers (03-1555/1833) Dav · filed 2004-02-03

The district court determined that Johnson’s claim against Powers in her official capacity was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. That determination is correct.

Section 1983 permits an individual-capacity claim when the course of proceedings gives defendants sufficient notice, even if the complaint does not specify capacity.

Lindsay v. Bogle · filed 2004-02-03

Nonetheless, this failure is “not fatal if the course of proceedings otherwise indicates that the defendants] received sufficient notice” of his intent to sue them personally. ... To the extent doubt persists that this combination of factors warrants construing the complaint as one against the defendants individually, this doubt should be resolved in Lindsay’s favor as a pro se plaintiff.

Section 1983 claims against a governor in his official capacity are subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Macdonald v. Broderick, et al. · filed 2004-09-15

To the extent Macdonald has attempted to set forth the elements of a claim against the Governor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Governor, in his official capacity, is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

When a § 1983 complaint does not specify the capacity in which public officials are sued, the claims against them are treated as official-capacity claims against the county.

Lott v. Ferrell · filed 2004-09-15

Accordingly, they were sued only in their official capacities and the claims against them were thus essentially against Scott County.

Section 1983 uses the course of proceedings to determine whether a government official was sued in an individual capacity when the complaint does not specify capacity.

Powell v. Alexander · filed 2004-11-24

We now join the multitude of circuits employing the "course of proceedings" test, which appropriately balances a defendant's need for fair notice of potential personal liability against a plaintiff's need for the flexibility to develop his or her case as the unfolding events of litigation warrant.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against state officers sued in their official capacities when the Eleventh Amendment bars payment from the state treasury.

Williams v. Starling · filed 2005-01-04

However, as the Fourth Circuit has explained in another case dealing with North Carolina’s drug tax, the Eleventh Amendment bars the awarding of damages against an officer of the State because it is the State that will have to pay the money from its treasury. ... For this reason, this Court cannot award plaintiff the damages he requests on any official capacity claims.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officers in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute; its definition of person does not bar individual-capacity claims.

Hernandez-Lopez v. Pereira · filed 2005-03-22

Thus, partial judgment will be entered DISMISSING the § 1983 claims against movants in their official capacities. However, we note that plaintiffs’ parallel action against them in their individual capacities is not barred by either the definition of “person” contained in § 1983 or the Eleventh Amendment.

A § 1983 individual-capacity claim may proceed without an express capacity designation when the course of proceedings gives the defendant notice of potential individual liability.

Carmack v. Trombley · filed 2005-03-31

Here, the first affirmative defense listed in Defendants’ Answer is qualified immunity, and they have moved for summary judgment on that basis. In addition, Plaintiff sought punitive and compensatory damages from both Defendants. Given these factors, I find that Defendant Trom-bley was on notice of the individual capacity claim, and therefore it may proceed.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a police chief is treated as a claim against the city.

Cimino v. Glaze · filed 2005-04-18

Before addressing the limitations issue, I note that to the extent that Duffy is sued in his official capacity, the claims against him are essentially claims against the City, so adding him as a defendant would change nothing.

A § 1983 claim against a municipal officer in his official capacity is duplicative of a § 1983 claim against the municipality.

Sudac Ex Rel. Sudac v. Hoang · filed 2005-07-07

The court dismisses plaintiff's § 1983 claim against defendant Hoang in his official capacity because that claim is duplicative of his § 1983 claim against defendant Unified Government.

Section 1983 claims against state parole board members in their official capacities are barred.

Rogers v. Nix · filed 2005-08-31

Although the district court did not address the specific claims against the Board members in their official capacities, such claims are barred.

A reinstatement claim under Section 1983 seeks prospective relief and is not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Spiess v. Fricke · filed 2005-09-13

Thus, a reinstatement action under section 1983 is not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A § 1983 claim against officers in their individual capacities must be established from the complaint and the course of the proceedings.

Alvarez v. City of Newburgh · filed 2005-09-27

To resolve this issue, the Court must consider both the totality of the Complaint and the “course of the proceedings.” ... With these concerns in mind, and having reviewed the course of the proceedings, we are persuaded that Plaintiff did not assert an individual capacity claim.

Section 1983 permits monetary damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Tanney v. Boles · filed 2005-12-01

Plaintiff is correct that individual capacity § 1983 claims for monetary damages and individual and official capacity claims for declaratory relief are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 monetary damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Williams v. Thomas · filed 2006-02-23

Given that Dr. Thomas and Warden McGinnis are agents of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Williams’s monetary damages claim against them in their official capacities was properly dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against an officer are redundant when the plaintiff sues the municipality directly.

Seattle Affiliate of the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression & the Criminalization of a Generati · filed 2006-04-20

Plaintiff is suing the City of Seattle directly under § 1983: its official-capacity claims against Chief Kerlikowske are hereby dismissed as redundant.

When a governmental entity is named as a § 1983 defendant, an official-capacity claim against its officer is redundant.

Longo v. SUFFOLK CTY. POLICE DEPT. CTY. OF SUFFOLK · filed 2006-05-01

Where, as here, the entity is named, it is redundant to allow the lawsuit to continue against individuals in their official capacities. ... Accordingly, the court dismisses the official capacity claim against Robilotto.

In a § 1983 damages action, official-capacity claims against county officials are effectively claims against the county, making the individual defendants duplicative.

Sherman v. County of Maui · filed 2006-06-29

The district court properly recognized that Sherman’s claims for damages against County officials in their official capacity were effectively claims against the County itself, and thus the individual defendants were duplicative.

Section 1983 does not treat states or state officials sued in their official capacities as persons liable for damages.

Thomas v. Walton · filed 2006-09-19

Furthermore, neither states nor state officials in their official capacities are “persons” within the meaning of section 1983.

Section 1983 claims against school officials in their official capacities are treated as claims against the school district and are duplicative when the district is also sued.

Rubio Ex Rel. Z.R. v. Turner Unified School District No. 202 · filed 2006-09-28

The Court agrees, because official capacity suits are merely another way of pleading an action against the entity of which an officer is an agent.

A § 1983 claim against a county sheriff in his official capacity is treated as a claim against the county.

Harris v. Bryant · filed 2006-11-01

The claims against Bryant in his official capacity are treated as claims against the county itself.

Section 1983 money damages claims against officials in their official capacities are barred when the Eleventh Amendment precludes a suit against the government they represent.

Masterson v. Meade County Fiscal Court · filed 2007-02-05

Accordingly, the claims for money damages against the individual Defendants acting in their official capacities fail as a matter of law.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a county requires a constitutional deprivation caused by a county policy.

Webb v. Greene County Sheriff's Office · filed 2007-07-06

To prevail on their claim against the Defendants in their official capacity, under § 1983, the Plaintiffs must establish 1) that they were deprived of a constitutional right, 2) that the county had a “policy,” and 3) that the policy was the moving force behind the constitutional violation.

A § 1983 damages claim against an officer is subject to dismissal when the officer is sued only in an official capacity.

Tyus v. Cranor · filed 2007-08-27

Upon de novo review, see Thomas v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 447 F.3d 1082, 1084-85 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review), we conclude that dismissal was proper because Tyus sued Officer Cranor only in his official capacity.

When a § 1983 complaint does not specify whether officials are sued individually or officially, the course of proceedings determines their capacity.

Holmstedt v. York County Jail Supervisor · filed 2007-08-28

While the approach of the Eighth Circuit displays the virtues of simplicity and certainty, we believe the Nebraska Supreme Court would follow the majority of federal courts that have recognized the “course of proceedings” test. ... We conclude that the action is one against those defendants in their individual capacities, notwithstanding that their names and titles appear in the complaint.

State officials sued in their official capacities are not persons subject to liability under § 1983.

Wares v. Simmons · filed 2007-10-31

This official capacity claim “must fail, because state officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity claims against state officials for prospective relief despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Sisney v. Reisch · filed 2008-02-06

The only situation in which state officials acting in their official capacities will be considered “persons” for purposes of § 1983, and the Eleventh Amendment will not bar the § 1983 claim, is where the plaintiff is seeking prospective relief.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim against a governmental agency or official to identify an official policy or accepted practice that violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Shaw v. TDCJ-CID · filed 2008-02-14

Moreover, Shaw fails to assert a claim against the agencies or the individual defendants in their official capacities because he has not identified an official policy or accepted practice in either claim that clearly violated his rights.

Section 1983 claims against municipal officers in their official capacities are treated as claims against the municipality.

Kirkland v. Luken · filed 2008-03-06

Insofar as plaintiff brings claims against defendants Luken and Reece in their official capacities, his claims are properly construed as claims against the City.

A § 1983 official-capacity claim against municipal officials requires the alleged constitutional violation to stem from a municipal policy or practice.

Hudson v. Lockhart · filed 2008-05-12

Hudson’s § 1983 claim against the named Defendants in their official capacity must be dismissed as well because he has failed to state that the alleged violation of the constitutional rights at issue derived from a municipal policy or practice.

Section 1983 treats a claim against an individual in an official capacity as a suit against the government entity.

Walker, Fredrick v. Sheahan, Michael · filed 2008-05-14

Actions against individual defendants in their official capacities are treated as suits brought against the government entity itself.

Section 1983 claims against a state official in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Coop v. Department of Natural Resource · filed 2008-07-16

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment also barred the § 1983 claim against Childers in his official capacity. ... After de novo review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Department and Childers. ... Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed based on reasons given by the district court.

Section 1983 generally does not treat state officials sued in their official capacities as persons subject to damages claims, and such officials are generally entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Dupree v. Alameida · filed 2008-08-01

The district court properly dismissed his claims for damages because “state officials, sued in their official capacities, are not ‘persons’ within the meaning of § 1983 and are therefore generally entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.”

Section 1983 permits a federal remedy for civil rights deprivations, but the claim must be directed against defendants who can be sued under the statute.

Russell v. University of Toledo · filed 2008-08-12

This argument is, however, unpersuasive. Examination of the complaint as a whole establishes that the plaintiff knows how to include all defendants in those counts of the complaint meant to apply to all defendants. ... The limitation in count four to the “Defendant University” must, therefore, be taken as indicative of Russell’s intentions and, consequently, supports the dismissal of the claim by the district court.

Under § 1983, an official-capacity claim against a government agent is treated as a claim against the government entity.

Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society · filed 2008-09-09

As such, to the extent that the Individual Defendants are named in their official capacities, those claims are effectively claims against the District of Columbia.

A § 1983 complaint that does not specify the capacity in which defendants are sued is construed as asserting only official-capacity claims.

Gingras v. Kraig Wood · filed 2008-09-24

We agree with the district court that, because Gingras’s complaint was silent as to the capacity in which he was suing defendants, his complaint was properly construed as asserting only official-capacity claims, ... and, as such, those claims failed, ... Accordingly, we affirm.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity; claims against them in their individual capacities are not barred on that ground.

Hicks v. Clay County · filed 2008-10-30

Accordingly, plaintiffs official capacity claims against defendant Chessin are DISMISSED due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. However, plaintiffs individual capacity claims against Defendant Chessin cannot be dismissed on these grounds.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against government employees are redundant when the same claims are brought against the employing government.

Hardy v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-03-06

Because plaintiffs make claims against the District of Columbia, the same claims against Washington and Smith in their official capacities are redundant and will be dismissed.

Section 1983 official capacity claims against employees are redundant when the same claims are brought against their government employer.

Hardy v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-03-06

Because the plaintiffs make official capacity claims against Washington and Smith that are identical to those made against the District of Columbia, the official capacity claims are redundant and will be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit official-capacity suits against state officials for applying state law when Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the claim.

Esteves-Jimenez v. Llorens · filed 1992-04-27

It is well settled that the 11th Amendment bars suits against state officials, in their official capacity, on the basis of their application of state law.

In a § 1983 suit, when the pleadings do not give a state employee notice of individual-capacity liability, the Eleventh Amendment bars money damages against the employee in an official capacity.

Rodgers v. Banks · filed 2003-09-17

Having applied the course of proceedings test, we hold that insufficient indicia exists in the original complaint and amended complaint suggesting that Defendant was on notice that she was being sued in her individual capacity. Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff’s suit to the extent that she seeks money damages.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against local officials are redundant when the plaintiff also sues their governmental entity.

Comer v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF GARY, IND. · filed 2009-05-06

Comer has named GHA as a defendant in this case. Therefore, his official capacity claims against the GHA board members and directors are redundant and should be dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against state employees in their official capacity are treated as claims against the state and barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Wesolowski v. Washburn · filed 2009-05-18

Finally, to the extent that defendants are named in their official capacities, all such claims must be dismissed in any event. Claims against state employees in their official capacity are deemed claims against the state itself, and are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against Puerto Rico officials in their official capacity are barred by the Commonwealth’s immunity from suit in federal court.

Soto-Rivera v. Guadarrama · filed 1998-07-23

First, Plaintiffs agree, as they must, that they may not bring any claims against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under § 1983, because neither the United States Congress nor the legislature of Puerto Rico has waived Puerto Rico’s immunity from suit in federal court for the purposes of § 1983. ... Therefore, all claims against Defendants in their official capacity are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's sovereign immunity, and state officials sued in their official capacities are not persons under the section.

Jones v. Carroll · filed 2009-06-24

The State has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court; although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Moreover, the claims against State defendants cannot be maintained because State defendants, in their official capacities, are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against state employees in their official capacities are treated as claims against the state and barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Coleman v. Beale · filed 2009-07-08

Finally, to the extent that defendants are named in their official capacities, all such claims must be dismissed in any event. Claims against state employees in their official capacity are deemed claims against the state itself, and are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against municipal employees in their official capacities are treated as claims against the municipality and may be dismissed as duplicative.

Malay v. City of Syracuse · filed 2009-07-14

As an initial matter, although Defendants fail to raise the issue in support of their motion, the “official capacity” claims against Miguel and Does 1-10 must be dismissed as duplicative because claims against a government employee in his official capacity are treated as a claim against the municipality.

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

Fielder v. Gehring · filed 2000-07-18

Section 1983, however, does not apply to Fielder’s claim that the Defendants violated that section in their official capacities.

State officials acting in their official capacities are not persons who may be sued under § 1983 in state court.

State v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada · filed 2002-03-13

As such, Anzalone has failed to state a claim under § 1983 against Del Papa and Haight in their official capacities.

The court treated § 1983 claims for injunctive relief as lodged against the current officeholders who could provide that relief.

Shepard v. PERYAM · filed 2009-09-23

It appears, therefore, that Shepard’s claims for injunctive relief should be deemed to be lodged against the defendant Sheriff (formerly Roth/now Peryam), the defendant MCDC Programs Services Director (formerly and presently Allen); the Trinity Food Services Director at MCDC (formerly Alvarez/now an unknown successor); and the Trinity Food Services Manager (formerly and presently Park).

Section 1983 claims against a county board and commissioners in their official capacities duplicate a claim against the county.

SWARTZ AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. v. Genesee County · filed 2009-09-25

Consequently, claims brought against Genesee Board of Commissioners and individual Commissioners pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are duplicative of the claim against Genesee County because official capacity suits are the equivalent of a suit against the municipality.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal officials are equivalent to claims against the municipality and may be dismissed as duplicative.

PATRIOT AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. v. Genesee County · filed 2009-09-25

Consequently, claims brought against Genesee Board of Commissioners and individual Commissioners pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are duplicative of the claim against Genesee County because official capacity suits are the equivalent of a suit against the municipality.

A Section 1983 claim against an officer in his official capacity is not duplicative when the officer’s employer is not also a defendant.

Pinder v. KNOROWSKI · filed 2009-10-08

As Plaintiff has not named Knorowski’s employer as a defendant, Plaintiffs claims against Knorowski in his official capacity are not duplicative.

Section 1983 damages claims against state prison staff sued only in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Paris Wheeler v. Iowa State Penitentiary · filed 2009-12-29

As to the ASP defendants, we conclude that Wheeler’s suit included only official-capacity claims, ... that any claim for damages was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, ... and that any claim for injunctive relief was moot, because Wheeler was no longer incarcerated at ASP, see Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

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

Torres v. Carry · filed 2010-02-03

It is well established that state agencies and state officials acting in their official capacities may not be sued under § 1983 for money damages.

Section 1983 claims against government employees in their official capacities duplicate claims against the government entity and should be dismissed as duplicative.

Hill v. Robeson County, NC · filed 2010-05-20

A claim against a government employee in his official capacity is tantamount to a claim against the government entity for which he works and should be dismissed as duplicative.

Section 1983 claims against officials in their official capacities are redundant when the government entity faces the same claims.

Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND · filed 2010-06-23

Plaintiff failed to specify whether the individual defendants were being sued in their individual or official capacities, and she chose not to address this issue in her opposition memorandum; therefore, the claims against the individual defendants are construed as a suit against them in their official capacities as officers of HASB. ... Because the HASB is also listed as a party and the claims against the individual defendants are identical to the claims against HASB, the claims against the individual defendants are dismissed.

An official capacity claim under § 1983 fails when the plaintiff has not established an underlying constitutional violation.

Russ v. Causey · filed 2010-08-05

Second, because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation, the § 1983 claims against defendants in their official capacities also fail.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against municipal officials as a claim against the municipality itself.

Willoughby Ex Rel. Doe v. Town of Tisbury · filed 2010-11-10

A claim against the Selectmen in their official capacities is merely another way of pleading a claim against the Town itself, ... which Plaintiffs have already done.

Section 1983 treats a claim against a county sheriff in his official capacity as a claim against the county.

Palmer v. BD. OF COM'RS FOR PAYNE COUNTY OKLAHOMA · filed 2011-01-18

Any claim against the Payne County sheriff in his official capacity is tantamount to an action against Payne County itself.

A § 1983 claim against a local official in an official capacity is treated as a claim against the local government.

Condiff v. Hart County School District · filed 2011-01-27

A § 1983 claim against a local government official in his or her official capacity is actually a claim against the local government itself.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against county officials require the plaintiff to identify a county policy that violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Myers v. Anoka County Sheriff · filed 2011-02-17

After careful de novo review of the record, we conclude that the district court ... (iii) properly dismissed the official capacity claims because Myers failed to identify any Anoka County policy that violated his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Evans v. Vinson · filed 2011-06-29

To the extent Evans seeks monetary damages from these defendants in their official capacities, his claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 official-capacity damages claims against government officials are duplicative when the municipality is also sued.

Steinberg v. Fenty · filed 2011-09-30

Thus, under Will and Graham, government actors sued for damages in their official capacities are considered “the State” for purposes of Section 1983. Where, as here, the municipality is also sued, such claims should be dismissed as duplicative.

Official-capacity § 1983 claims against county defendants may be dismissed as redundant when the county is also sued.

Rooker v. Ouray County · filed 2012-01-13

Our-ay argues that the claims against Hunt and Peck should be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff is also suing the County, making the claims against them redundant and superfluous. Yeowell contends that the claims against him in his official capacity should likewise be dismissed for those reasons. Plaintiff has no objection to these arguments. Accordingly, I grant the portion of Ouray’s motion seeking to dismiss with prejudice the claims against Hunt and Peck, and I grant the portion of Yeowell’s motion seeking to dismiss the claims against him in his official capacity.

A § 1983 claim against a District of Columbia official in his official capacity is a claim against the District, making the claim against the official redundant when the District is also named.

Faison v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-02-28

The claim against Mayor Gray is the equivalent of a § 1983 claim against the District itself. ... Where, as here, the District is also a defendant, the claim against Mayor Gray is redundant.

A former sheriff who no longer represents the governmental entity cannot be sued in his official capacity under Section 1983.

Spadaro v. City of Miramar · filed 2012-02-29

Because Defendant Jenne ceased to be Broward County Sheriff in 2007, the Court agrees that Jenne can no longer be sued in his official capacity.

Official-capacity § 1983 claims against government employees may be dismissed as redundant when the plaintiff also sues the government entity.

C.K. & J.K. v. Bell County Board of Education · filed 2012-03-14

As a matter of housekeeping, the Court will therefore dismiss the redundant official-capacity claims against the Phippses and Howard.

A § 1983 claim against an official in her individual capacity cannot be transferred to her successor merely because she left office.

Hurd v. Garcia · filed 2012-03-15

As defendants concede, the district court erred to the extent that it substituted Warden Giurbino for former Warden Garcia on claims brought against Garcia in her individual capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against these defendants in their official capacities.

Villanueva v. Franklin County Sheriff's Office · filed 2012-03-27

To the extent that they are sued in their official capacities, they may not be sued for damages in a § 1983 action.

A Section 1983 claim against an official in his official capacity is redundant when the plaintiff also sues the governmental entity.

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Northside I.S.D. · filed 2012-08-06

The Court agrees. Any “official capacity” claim under section 1983 against Mr. Aslin is dismissed as redundant.

Section 1983 does not authorize damages claims against state officials in their official capacities.

Facey v. Dickhaut · filed 2012-09-25

Just as states cannot be sued under § 1983, the Supreme Court has held that § 1983 does not authorize suits against state officials in their official capacity. ... The plaintiffs claims against the defendants in their official capacities are, therefore, being dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against school district employees in their official capacities require evidence that a district policy or custom violated a student’s rights.

Braden ex rel. M v. Mountain Home School District · filed 2012-10-18

Along the same lines, since claims against the employees of a school district, in their official capacities, also require evidence of a policy or custom of the district that violated a student’s rights, § 1983 claims against the individual Defendants in their official capacities are also dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against municipal officials in their official capacities are redundant when the municipality is also a defendant and may be dismissed.

Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government · filed 2013-01-30

When, as in this case, the government entity itself is a defendant in the litigation, claims against specific individuals in their official capacities are redundant, and for that reason, courts in this circuit have found it is appropriate to dismiss them.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state official in his official capacity because the state is not a person under the statute.

Hilton v. Wright · filed 2013-03-11

It is well-settled that states and governments are not “persons” under § 1983 and, therefore, Eleventh Amendment immunity is not abrogated by § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Cryer v. Spencer · filed 2013-03-21

Next, defendants Spencer, Mitchell, and Diekhaut argue that no monetary damages can be awarded to Cryer in connection with his § 1983 claims against them in their official capacities. The Court agrees.

A § 1983 official-capacity claim against a municipal official is dismissed as duplicative when the complaint also sues the municipal entity.

Thorpe ex rel. D.T. v. Breathitt County Board of Education · filed 2013-03-22

As a result, when a § 1983 complaint asserts a claim against a municipal entity and a municipal official in his or her official capacity, federal courts will dismiss the official-capacity claim.

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity claims against officials alleged to have acted under color of state law without requiring an allegation that they carried out an official policy or custom.

Zimmerman v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University · filed 2013-04-15

The Court finds, as the Defendants appear to concede by failing to address the Students’ arguments, that the Students have adequately alleged individual capacity claims against Drs. Gillilan and Hargrave. They allege that Drs. Gillilan and Hargrave acted under color of state law, and do not allege that their individual actions were simply to carry out an official policy or custom.

Under Section 1983, a claim against a municipal official in an official capacity is treated as a claim against the municipality.

McDonald v. Miller · filed 2013-05-13

Claims against municipal officials acting in their “official” capacities are the same as an action against the municipality itself.

Section 1983 claims against officials in their official capacities are treated as claims against the government entity and are redundant when that entity is also sued.

Brown v. Chicago Board of Education · filed 2013-09-25

This is true because an action brought against an individual in his official capacity “is tantamount to a claim against the government entity itself.”

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim when the complaint adequately alleges a prison policy or custom giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims.

Dunn v. Killingsworth · filed 2013-10-23

The Court concludes that the allegations in the Complaint are adequate to allege an official-capacity claim based on the existence of a policy or custom of the prison giving rise to Plaintiffs claims.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal officers are duplicative of claims against the municipality.

Canzoneri v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre · filed 2013-12-05

The Court dismisses the official-capacity claims against the individual officers because they are duplicative of the Monell claims against the Village.

In a Section 1983 suit against defendants only in their individual capacities, allegations offered to establish a jail’s unconstitutional custom or policy need not be considered.

Simmons v. Hays County Sheriff's Department · filed 2014-01-15

Simmons sued the defendants named in his first 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit only in their individual capacities. Accordingly, Simmons’s allegations concerning three detainees’ deaths at the jail in an apparent attempt to establish an unconstitutional custom or policy on the part of the jail need not ... be considered.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal officers are not duplicative of claims against the municipality when the plaintiff has brought no such claims against the municipality.

Martinez v. County of Suffolk · filed 2014-02-27

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that it does not dismiss the second amended complaint to the extent the Plaintiff raises Section 1983 and Section 1985 claims against Krause and Hansen in their official capacity, as duplicative of such claims against the County under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). This is because the Plaintiff raises no such claims against the County as a separate entity.

Section 1983 claims against municipal officials in their official capacities are redundant when identical claims are brought against the municipality.

Corral v. Montgomery County · filed 2014-03-05

A claim against a public official in his or her official capacity is one way to assert a claim against the government of which the official is a part. ... Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted for Defendants Isiah Leggett, Norman W. Brissett, and D.M. Smith in their official capacities.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against government officials are equivalent to claims against the government entity they represent.

Martinson v. Leason · filed 2014-05-21

But official-capacity claims against government officials are the functional equivalent of claims against the municipal entity in question (here, Dakota County), ... and Martinson has conceded he “has no § 1983 claim against Dakota County” (Mem. in Opp’n at 32 n. 2). Hence, he also "has no § 1983 claim” against the Individual Defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against arms of the state or damages claims against state agents in their official capacities.

Zochlinski v. the Regents of the University of California · filed 2014-06-10

The district court properly dismissed Zochlinski’s §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986 claims against The Regents of the University of California, and his damages claims under these provisions against the individual defendants in their official capacities, because arms of the state and their agents acting in their official capacities are not subject to suit under those provisions.

Section 1983 claims against school officials in their official capacities are duplicative when the school district is already a defendant.

A.W. v. Humble Independent School District · filed 2014-06-11

Because any § 1983 claims asserted against the individual defendants in their official capacities would duplicate the § 1983 claims asserted against HISD, the individual defendants are entitled to dismissal of any § 1983 claims that plaintiffs have asserted or attempted to assert against them in their official capacities.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer as a claim against the municipality, so dropping the municipal claim also ends the official-capacity claim.

Procknow v. Curry · filed 2014-06-18

Hence, he has no § 1983 claim against the officers in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against school board employees in their official capacities are redundant when the same claims are brought against the board.

George v. Board of Education · filed 2014-07-23

Count 2 is a Section 1983 claim against the Individual Defendants in their official and personal capacities. To the extent Count 2 is brought against the Individual Defendants in their official capacities, Count 2 is redundant of the claims seeking to impose liability against the Board. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT summary judgment on Count 2 to the extent Count 2 is directed against the Individual Defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not allow official-capacity claims against these defendants when the plaintiff seeks only monetary relief.

Davis v. Willis · filed 2014-08-05

Because the plaintiff seeks only monetary relief for her claims against defendants, not injunctive relief, the court shall grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment for plaintiffs claim under § 1983 against all defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against municipal officers in their official capacities are redundant when the municipality is also a defendant.

Broussard v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government · filed 2014-09-05

In keeping with this principle, the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities are redundant of the claims asserted against the City-Parish Consolidated Government, and that the Lafayette City Police Department does not have the capacity to be sued under § 1983.

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

Christensen v. Quinn · filed 2014-09-10

Accordingly, Christensen’s official capacity claims against Severson for money damages also fail because Severson, in his official capacity, is not a proper party under § 1983.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a government employee may be dismissed as redundant when the government entity is also a defendant.

Moore v. City of Tulsa · filed 2014-10-22

As this Court has previously written, “[i]f a governmental entity is already a defendant in a lawsuit, then any official capacity claims against its employees are redundant and may be dismissed.” ... The claims against Fire Chief Driskell in his official capacity are dismissed.

In a § 1983 official-capacity suit for prospective injunctive relief against state officials, a state policy or custom must have played a part in the alleged constitutional violation.

Norsworthy v. Beard · filed 2014-11-18

Defendants’ argument that in this official-capacity action against state officials for injunctive relief, CDCR “policy or custom” must have played a part in the violations is well taken.

Section 1983 monetary claims against municipal officials in their official capacities may be dismissed as duplicative when the municipality is also sued and has had notice and an opportunity to respond.

Vázquez v. Surillo-Ruiz · filed 2015-01-07

Hence, following the lead of various other district courts, this Court hereby dismisses the official-capacity § 1983 claims for monetary relief.

A Section 1983 claim against a municipal employee in an official capacity is treated as a claim against the municipality.

Swope v. City of Pittsburgh · filed 2015-02-05

It is well settled that Section 1983 claims brought against a municipal employee in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of bringing an action against the government entity itself.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against school district employees are redundant when the plaintiff also sues the district.

Gray v. Great Valley School District · filed 2015-04-06

Because the official-capacity claims against defendants Lonoconus, Goffredo, Flick, Hoffritz, Byrne, Bebee, and Trimble are redundant of plaintiffs claims against the Great Valley School District, the Court grants defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss as to this issue and dismisses with prejudice all claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 imposes official-capacity liability only when a constitutional injury is caused by a government policy or custom.

Turner v. Mull · filed 2015-04-28

"Official-capacity liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 occurs only when a constitutional injury is caused by 'a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.'"

A § 1983 claim against an officer in his official capacity is treated as a claim against the government entity he represents.

Drew v. NH Drug Task Force · filed 2015-07-27

An official capacity claim is a claim against the NHDTF.

Section 1983 permits a claim for injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities when the alleged state policy caused the constitutional injury.

Tyrone Rogers v. Giurbino · filed 2015-08-31

Assuming the allegations in the SAC are true, California’s policy would have played a role in violating Rogers’s constitutional rights. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). Thus, Rogers alleged facts sufficient to pursue a cause of action for injunctive relief against Giurbino and Uribe in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against government employees in their official capacities may be dismissed as redundant when the plaintiff also sues the government entity.

Shepherd v. Floyd County · filed 2015-09-10

Section 1983 claims may be dismissed against government entity employees as redundant when the plaintiff also sues the government entity.

Section 1983 claims against school board members in their official capacities duplicate claims against the school district.

Damiano v. Scranton School District · filed 2015-09-30

Thus, plaintiffs claims against the six board members in their official capacity are redundant of the claims plaintiff asserts against SSD.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities, but that relief is unavailable when the alleged deprivation has ended.

Braham v. Newbould · filed 2015-10-06

This exception applies only to prospective injunctive relief. ... We therefore conclude that there is no practical pro- spective injunctive relief available to the plaintiff with respect to his eighth amendment claim.13 Accordingly, that claim was properly dismissed.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials acting in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

Reid v. Rory Griffin · filed 2015-12-17

We agree with the district court that Reid’s claims against the defendants in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity. See Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that a § 1983 damages claim against a state official acting in his official capacity is barred, either by the Eleventh Amendment or because, in such capacity, he is not a “person” capable of being sued).

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against state officials in their official capacities when the Eleventh Amendment provides sovereign immunity.

Cupe v. Lantz · filed 2007-01-18

It is equally clear that the doctrine of sovereign immunity embodied by the Eleventh Amendment precludes a suit for damages against a state brought under section 1983.

Section 1983 bars claims for economic damages or other retrospective relief against a state agency or a state official sued in an official capacity.

Med RX/Systems, P.L.L.C. v. Texas Department of State Health Services · filed 2016-02-04

Thus, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against DSHS and Cole in his official capacity are barred insofar as Plaintiff seeks economic damages or other retrospective relief.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity claims against a government entity, while duplicative claims against officers in their official capacity should be dismissed.

Tompkins v. City of Woodhaven Police Officer Dennis Deweese · filed 2016-04-20

Separately, Plaintiff filed the section 1983 claim against both the city and the officers in their official capacity. The claims against the officers individually are duplicative and should be dismissed.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires a governmental policy or custom to have played a part in the alleged violation of federal law.

Scott Family Properties, LP v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission · filed 2016-06-03

“Because the real party in interest in an official-capacity suit is the governmental entity and not the named official, ‘the entity’s policy or custom must have played a part in the violation of federal law.’ ” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018). Plaintiffs complaint is devoid of any allegations that the commissioners have final policy-making authority or acted pursuant to official policy or custom.

A § 1983 official-capacity claim against a municipal employee is redundant when the plaintiff brings an identical claim against the municipality.

Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital District · filed 2016-06-06

In the same vein, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs official-capacity claims against Nurses Mendez and Telles because Plaintiff redundantly sought identical claims against Defendant Hospital—the municipal-entity.

An official capacity § 1983 claim against an officer is a claim against the government entity and is redundant when that entity is separately sued.

Trudy Mighty v. Carballosa · filed 2016-08-10

Therefore, any official capacity claim against Defendant is in reality a claim against Miami–Dade County. Because Plaintiff separately named Miami–Dade County as a defendant, the official capacity claim was redundant.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against city officials may be dismissed as duplicative when the plaintiff also sues the city.

Dorris v. City of McKinney · filed 2016-10-04

The federal claims against the Individual Defendants are dismissed as duplicative of the claims brought against the City.

A § 1983 complaint that does not specify the capacity in which a defendant is sued is treated as asserting only official-capacity claims, which may be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Arp v. Cerro Gordo County Sheriff · filed 2016-11-02

Upon careful review, we find no reason to reverse the dismissal order because Arp failed to specify the capacity in which the defendant was sued despite warnings from the district court. Therefore, the court interprets the complaint as asserting only official-capacity claims, which are barred by Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 allows prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

John Doe, I v. Cummins · filed 2016-12-06

Because Doe I and Doe II are seeking prospective equitable relief, their claims are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state prison officials in their official capacities, but claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against them may proceed.

Manzanillo v. Lewis · filed 2017-01-12

Thus, any claims for money damages brought by Manza-nillo against the defendants in their official capacities are barred. Manzanillo’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against defendants in their official capacities, however, may proceed.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

Ross v. Carpenter · filed 2017-02-14

we conclude that Dr. Carpenter was entitled to sovereign immunity on Ross’s official-capacity claims for damages.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a school superintendent is duplicative of a claim against the school board when both are sued for the same alleged violations.

Methelus v. School Board of Collier County · filed 2017-03-17

Second, Defendants argue that the § 1983 claims are duplicative against Superintendent Patton and the School Board. (Doc. 37 at 22 n.27). The Court also agrees.

Section 1983 plaintiffs must give officials clear notice if they seek to hold them individually liable; expressly naming officials in their official capacity does not give that notice.

Goodwin v. Summit Cnty., Ohio · filed 2017-07-12

As this court explained in Moore, “§ 1983 plaintiffs must clearly notify defendants of the potential for individual liability.”

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim against local officials when the complaint adequately alleges a government policy or custom behind the claimed deprivation.

Blazer v. Gall · filed 2017-09-21

Reading the pro se amended complaint liberally, plaintiff has set forth a claim that Corson County had some policy or custom of refusing to pay for medical care for pretrial detainees held at the Walworth County jail and that Walworth County had some policy or custom of refusing to provide medical care for Corson County detainees housed in Walworth County unless Corson County paid for such care. The official capacity claims against the named officials adequately plead an action against the entities of which the individual officers are an agent as required by Graham v. Kentucky.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim against a local government official only when a government policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional injury.

Atwater v. Tucker · filed 2017-10-24

A local government such as the county may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983. This rule also applies to local government officials sued in their official capacities. ... Tucker did not allege facts that showed a government policy or custom of permitting a constitutional violation.

Section 1983 treats official capacity claims against county employees as claims against the county.

Love, Jr. v. Fincher · filed 2017-11-22

In other words, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants are treated as claims against Hempstead County.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against individual officials are duplicative when the governmental entity is already sued for the same claims.

Zurchin v. Ambridge Area Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-01-09

The Court finds that "there is no reason to continue the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities: those defendants are already potentially liable in their personal capacities, and the potential liability of the school district and school board for the claims against them makes the official capacity actions needlessly duplicative."