42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 official-capacity claims may be dismissed as duplicative when they mirror a claim against the municipality.

Swear v. Lawson · filed 2018-01-16

As Plaintiff has not clarified any difference in claims, the Court will dismiss the Section 1983 claims against Defendants Vinson and Lawson in their official capacities, and proceed with analysis of Plaintiff's Section 1983 First Amendment claim against the City of Gretna.

State employees sued in their official capacities are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Tomashek v. A.S. Meadows · filed 2018-01-22

Moreover, state employees sued in their official capacity are not considered people subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Therefore, notwithstanding their Eleventh Amendment immunity, dismissal is also warranted as to the plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the state defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 allows an official-capacity claim against a state official for prospective relief from an ongoing constitutional violation despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Smith v. Lewis · filed 2018-01-25

That being said, however, Eleventh Amendment immunity does not preclude suits against state officials in their official capacities for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief for ongoing constitutional violations. ... Accordingly, this ground for dismissal is unpersuasive at this time.

Section 1983 requires a county policy, custom, or practice to support liability on an official capacity claim against a county officer.

Story v. Delaney · filed 2018-01-30

To establish Columbia County’s liability under section 1983, “plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation was committed pursuant to an official custom, policy, or practice of the governmental entity.”

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against public officials duplicate a claim against the government entity itself when that entity is also sued.

McPartlin v. County Of Cook · filed 2018-02-10

Here, Count One alleges that Cook County is liable for the retaliatory firing of McPartlin, and that simply duplicates the official-capacity claims in Counts Two and Three (both of which also allege retaliatory discharge). So the redundant official-capacity claims in Counts Two and Three are dismissed in favor of Count One.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective injunctive relief against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Oakleaf v. Martinez · filed 2018-03-06

Thus, this action is a proper Ex Parte Young claim.

Section 1983 official capacity claims against local officials require a governmental policy, practice, or custom that contributed to the alleged constitutional violation.

Foots v. Rose · filed 2018-03-13

Plaintiff has not alleged that any policy, practice, or custom of the City of Lewisville or Lafayette County contributed in any way to the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against all Defendants fail as a matter of law.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against local officials turn on who has final authority over the challenged policy under state law.

Estate of Hammers v. Douglas Cnty. · filed 2018-03-28

Therefore, the court finds Sheriff McGovern, in his official capacity, is the final policymaker when it comes to policies and procedures within the jail. Claims against Undersheriff Massey in his official capacity are dismissed.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim against county officials to identify a county policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Solomon v. Runion · filed 2018-05-18

Here, Plaintiff has not identified any policy, custom or practice of Miller County that was the moving force behind his allegations in the Amended Complaint regarding the jail’s conditions or grievances.

Section 1983 official capacity claims require proof that an entity’s policy or custom violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Rogers v. Hollenbeck · filed 2018-07-02

Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that a custom or policy of SCDC violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from other inmates. To the contrary, he alleges it was the failure of Defendants to follow SCDC policies which resulted in his injuries.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against a state official sued in an official capacity when the state has not waived sovereign immunity.

Thunder Hawk-Gallardo v. Wendling · filed 2018-07-18

The state of South Dakota has not waived its sovereign immunity. Thus, to the extent Thunder Hawk-Gallardo seeks to hold Wendling liable in his official capacity for money damages, the court finds that Wendling, in his official capacity, and thus, the state of South Dakota, is protected by sovereign immunity and is entitled to judgment on this issue as a matter of law.

Section 1983 treats a claim against an officer in an official capacity as a claim against the governmental entity, which requires an alleged policy, custom, or widespread practice.

Bara v. Litzsinger · filed 2018-07-19

Plaintiff’s official capacity claim is considered to be a claim against the governmental entity, here, Washington County. “A municipality may be liable under § 1983 where ‘action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.’” Hollingsworth v. City of St. Ann, 800 F.3d 985, 991-992 (8th Cir. 2015)(quoting Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of any governmental policy, custom, or wide spread practice. No official capacity claim is stated.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing local officials in their official capacities to show that a government policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Stanley v. Brady · filed 2018-08-27

To state a claim against a governmental entity, plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of the governmental entity is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. ... While Plaintiff has sued these Defendants in their official capacity, he has not alleged that their actions were taken pursuant to any custom, policy, or practice of Benton County.

Section 1983 claims against public employees in their official capacities duplicate claims against their public employer.

Kresch v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp. · filed 2018-08-31

Similarly, Plaintiffs decline to oppose Defendants’ contention that claims against public employees in their official capacity are duplicative of claims against the public employer. Indeed, “[s]uits against state officials in their official capacity…should be treated as suits against the State.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). Therefore, Count II, as against Perez in his official capacity, is dismissed.

Section 1983 money damages cannot be recovered from Texas correctional officers sued in their official capacities because the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims.

Marvin Waddleton, III v. Bernadette Rodriguez, et · filed 2018-09-07

Waddleton only sought monetary damages, so to the extent the prison officials were sued in their official capacities, Waddleton’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A Section 1983 claim against an official may proceed in his individual capacity when the complaint alleges that he acted under color of law; ambiguity about capacity is resolved in the plaintiff's favor at the pleading stage.

Murphy v. Commonwealthexec. Office of the Trial Court · filed 2018-09-28

I find, however, that Mr. Abraham is named in his individual capacity. The complaint does not mention Mr. Abraham's title and notes that he was acting "under color of law." Docket No. 4 ¶ 117. Further, even if there is ambiguity as to whether Mr. Abraham is named in his official capacity, at this stage in the litigation the ambiguity must be resolved in Plaintiff's favor.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity claims against officers, but those claims are duplicative when the plaintiff also sues the municipality.

Colon v. McLaughlin · filed 2018-10-09

Here, because Colon has also named the City of Naperville as a ... Defendant, the claims against McLaughlin and Driscoll in their official capacities are duplicative and properly dismissed.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a public employee requires allegations that the employer’s policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.

Post v.The Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation · filed 2018-10-22

The complaint does not allege any claims against Metra, noting that it “is a party to this matter solely for purposes of indemnification,” [30] ¶ 10, nor could it, absent allegations that a Metra policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violations.

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

Green v. Byrd · filed 2018-12-18

A claim against a city official in his official capacity is equivalent to a claim against the city itself.

Section 1983 treats official capacity claims against employees of a contracted medical provider as claims against the provider itself.

Proctor v. Foltz · filed 2019-01-08

When a government contracts with a third party to fulfill a constitutional duty, such as providing medical care, official capacity claims against the third party’s employees are treated as claims against the third party itself.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against officers may be dismissed as duplicative when the municipality is also named as a defendant.

French v. City of Casey · filed 2019-01-09

Since the City of Cortez is the real party in interest and is named as a defendant, dismissal of the Frenches' official capacity claims against Defendant Officers is justified.

Section 1983 treats official-capacity claims against employees of a government medical contractor as claims against the contractor itself.

Proctor v. King · filed 2019-01-10

When a government contracts with a third party to fulfill a constitutional duty—such as providing medical care—official capacity claims against the third party’s employees are treated as claims against the third party itself.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim against county officers to allege a county policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation.

Coleman v. Adams · filed 2019-01-16

His claims do not suggest the existence of any policy, custom or practice of Miller County. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendants in their official capacity.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim against a county when a county policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Chandler v. Wolcott · filed 2019-02-11

Except for Plaintiff’s official capacity claims arising from his denial of medical care and condition of confinement involving black mold and inadequate ventilation, Plaintiff’s claims do not suggest the existence of any policy, custom or practice of Sevier County which contributed to a violation of his rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims for denial of medical care and conditions of confinement should be allowed to proceed. All other official capacity claims should be dismissed.

A Section 1983 claim against a sheriff in his official capacity is treated as a claim against the sheriff’s office.

Coleman v. Dart · filed 2019-02-19

Plaintiff’s claim against Dart in his official capacity is the same as a claim against the Sheriff’s Office.

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

Spears v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents · filed 2019-03-06

Indeed, the Eleventh Amendment bars a section 1983 damages claim against state actors sued in their official capacities. ... To the extent Spears is seeking to sue state officials in official capacities for damages, the claims will be dismissed without leave to amend.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim requires an allegation that the official implemented a policy or custom of the government entity.

Fredin v. Olson · filed 2019-03-07

First, Fredin sues Olson in her official- capacity § ... 1983 claim, the complainant must allege the official implemented a policy or custom of the state entity.

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

Clapp v. Tobin · filed 2019-03-14

Accordingly, to the extent the Amended Complaint seeks monetary damages against any of the state-employee defendants in their official capacity, such claims are barred under the Eleventh Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a county employee as a claim against the county.

Kendrick v. Hash · filed 2019-03-25

In this case, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants are treated as claims against Nevada County.

Section 1983 claims against an official in his official capacity are redundant when a claim against the municipality would impose the same liability.

Nawara v. County Of Cook · filed 2019-03-28

A successful claim against Dart in his official capacity would simply render Defendant Cook County liable. Estate of Sims, 506 F.3d at 514. Thus, the claim against Dart in his official capacity is redundant.

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

Ala. State Conference of the Naacp v. City of Pleasant Grove · filed 2019-04-02

Although most cases dismissing official capacity claims as duplicative of claims against a municipality involve identical § 1983 claims, courts within this Circuit have recognized that the same logic extends to official capacity claims brought under the Voting Rights Act. ... Upon review of Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claims against the Mayor and City Council members are entirely duplicative of the claims against Pleasant Grove. ... Therefore, the Court concludes that both the constitutional and Voting Rights Act claims brought against them are due to be dismissed.

A § 1983 claim against an officer in his official capacity duplicates a claim against the same local government and may be dismissed.

Garza v. Escobar · filed 2019-04-30

Because Plaintiff's official capacity claim against Escobar is duplicative of her claim against Starr County, this claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim against a county only when a county policy, practice, or custom caused the constitutional violation.

Martz v. Webb · filed 2019-04-30

Plaintiff has not alleged that any policy, practice, or custom of Sevier County contributed to the alleged violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against all Defendants fail as a matter of law.

Section 1983 treats official-capacity claims against municipal officers as claims against the municipality.

Day v. City of Indianapolis · filed 2019-05-13

Those allegations support a constitutional claim against the officers in their official capacities which, in the Seventh Circuit, is treated as a claim brought against the government entity itself.

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

Brown v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. · filed 2019-05-13

Section 1983 only authorizes suits against "person[s]." ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs may not pursue money damages against Corcoran, Miller and Moyer in their official capacities.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a police officer requires facts showing that a governmental policy or custom caused the alleged violation.

Johnson v. Weets · filed 2019-05-17

Jt is clear, then, that: Jobnson has not alleged sufficient facts to establish 4 claim for □□ custom liability. Moreover, the raonetary damages Johnson seeks are not available against Officer Weets in his official capacity. Johnson’s claim against Officer Weets should therefore be dismissed.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a sheriff as a claim against the sheriff’s office, which may be liable for injuries caused by its policies, customs, or practices.

Burch v. Dart · filed 2019-05-28

These allegations are properly understood as a claim that the Cook County Sheriff’s Office violated Burch’s rights through its policies, customs, or practices stemming from Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 against a county employee must identify an allegedly unconstitutional county policy or custom.

Aldridge v. Bernet · filed 2019-06-17

To state an official-capacity claim, Mr. Aldridge must challenge a County custom or policy that is allegedly unconstitutional.

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

Valachi v. Arkansas Department of Corrections · filed 2019-06-19

Valachi cannot recover damages against the defendants in their official capacities for his claims brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 official capacity claims against employees of a contracted medical provider are treated as claims against the provider and require a policy, custom, or official action that caused the injury.

Solis v. Jones · filed 2019-06-24

When a government contracts with a third party to fulfill a constitutional duty—such as providing medical care—official capacity claims against the third party’s employees are treated as claims against the third party itself. ... To sustain an official capacity claim against such an entity a plaintiff “must show that there was a policy custom, or official action that inflicted an actionable injury.” ... Upon review, Plaintiff has failed to allege any policy or custom of CCS that contributed to the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state an official capacity claim against Defendant Jones-Foster.

Section 1983 does not allow a district attorney to assert absolute prosecutorial immunity against an official-capacity municipal liability claim.

Lefebure v. Boeker · filed 2019-06-25

The Court finds that the DA is likewise not immune from an official capacity suit based on the defense of absolute prosecutorial immunity.

A Section 1983 claim against state correctional officials proceeds only in their individual capacities when the requested injunctive relief is unrelated to that claim.

Pena v. Cook · filed 2019-07-12

As the injunctive relief requested in the Amended Complaint, removal from SRG designation and restoration of privileges and good time, is unrelated to the retaliation claim, the claim against defendants Santiago and Maiga will proceed against them in their individual capacities only.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state officials may seek only equitable relief.

Khrapko v. Splain · filed 2019-07-23

To the extent that any of plaintiff's claims are brought against defendants in their official capacities, those claims are dismissed. Such claims may only be brought to seek equitable relief, and for the reasons stated above, there is no basis for any relief here, legal or equitable.

Section 1983 permits dismissal of an official-capacity claim as redundant when the plaintiff also sues the government entity.

Perry v. Carter County, Tennessee · filed 2019-07-29

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

Section 1983 official-capacity claims require discriminatory action representing a governmental policy or custom, or action by a final policymaker.

Doe v. School District Number 1, Denver, Colorado · filed 2019-07-30

Moreover, to state a claim against the individual Defendants in their official capacities, Plaintiff needed to allege discriminatory actions that represented an official policy or custom of DPS or were taken by a final policymaker of DPS.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity claims for injunctive relief against state officials when the plaintiff alleges an ongoing violation of rights and seeks an injunction to remedy it.

Booker v. Griffin · filed 2019-07-30

The Court determines that reconsideration of its dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Chappius and Keller in their official capacities is warranted because dismissal under the Eleventh Amendment is not always appropriate where, as here, a plaintiff requests injunctive relief.

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

STATHUM v. NADROWSKI · filed 2019-07-31

It is well established that “[s]tate officers sued for damages in their official capacity are not ‘persons’” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”).

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state official acting in an official capacity.

Madison v. Cruz · filed 2019-08-01

Defendant Middleton, in his official capacity, is not amenable to suit for damages pursuant to Section 1983.

Section 1983 claims against an officer in his official capacity are duplicative of claims against the relevant governmental entity and are properly dismissed.

Johnson v. Indianola, Mississippi Police Department · filed 2019-08-09

As a general rule, § 1983 claims against an officer in his official capacity are duplicative with the claims against the relevant entity and, therefore, are properly dismissed. ... Accordingly, the second motion to dismiss will be granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of the § 1983 official capacity claims, and will be denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of the state law official capacity claims.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against an officer is duplicative when the plaintiff also sues the municipality for the same claim.

Wade v. City of Tulsa · filed 2019-08-09

Because plaintiff has also named the City as a defendant, and standards governing municipal liability apply to that claim just as they apply to an official capacity claim, any official capacity suit against Officer Deramus is duplicative and should be dismissed.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal officers are redundant when the municipality is also sued.

L & L Construction Services, L.L.C. v. Falgout · filed 2019-08-14

Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against Mr. Falgout and Mayor Favre in their official capacities are essentially claims against the City and are therefore redundant.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity claims against state officials for prospective injunctive relief, including expungement of university disciplinary records.

Doe v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University · filed 2019-08-15

But here, plaintiffs are seeking to expunge and clear their academic records, among other injunctive relief, which numerous courts have noted is a request for prospective relief and not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... Thus, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief fall within the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiffs’ claims against individual defendants in their official capacities survive the Rule 12(b)(1) motion.

Section 1983 does not support an official-capacity claim against a state correctional official.

Cordwell v. Widen · filed 2019-08-15

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES any § 1983 claims brought against Stubblefield in her official capacity and any claims that are premised on her vicarious liability for the actions of any of the other Defendant.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against an appropriate official-capacity defendant without pleading that official's personal involvement.

Mercer v. Schriro · filed 2019-08-26

In the case at bar, the Court will substitute James C. Rovella for Dora B. Schriro as Commissioner of the DESPP for all claims against the Commissioner in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief under § 1983. Although Rovella was not involved in Mercer's transfer, "[t]he requirement of pleading each defendant's personal responsibility does not apply to such requests for equitable relief" in a § 1983 action.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a government officer may be dismissed as redundant when the plaintiff also sues the government entity.

Zachery v. Coosa County Board of Education · filed 2019-08-27

Accordingly, the official capacity claims against the Superintendent are “redundant and possibly confusing,” in precisely the manner that warrants dismissal of these duplicative claims.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state correctional officer in his official capacity when the state is immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

Elias v. Lichinov · filed 2019-08-29

First, the Complaint does not state a viable Section 1983 claim against defendant Lichinov in his official capacity because the State – the real party in interest – is immune from this suit for damages.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not persons subject to suit.

Gregory v. Wiggins · filed 2019-08-29

State officials sued in their official capacities for monetary damages are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not waived it.

Prevost v. Westbrook · filed 2019-08-30

First, the Court agrees with Judge Volpe that Mr. Prevost’s official capacity claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary damages against defendants are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim against municipal employees to allege a municipal policy or custom that caused the constitutional deprivation.

Hicks v. Gallegos · filed 2019-09-11

Based on a careful review of the Third Amended Complaint, there are no factual allegations that could show the existence of a municipal policy or custom that was the moving force behind the constitutional deprivation related to Mr. Hicks’ alleged use of force and failure to intervene claims.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim against employees of a private entity to allege that the entity’s policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.

Lindley v. Lizenbee · filed 2019-09-11

Therefore, to state an official-capacity claim against Graham and Hill, plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of their employer, Corizon LLC, is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state officials are duplicative when the plaintiff also sues the state agency.

Gaddis v. Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind · filed 2019-09-13

Moreover, AIDB—a state defendant—is a party to this case. Accordingly, any official capacity claims against Atkinson and Mascia are effectively claims against AIDB and are duplicative.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims for monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities.

WILSON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION · filed 2019-09-18

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims for monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities.

Section 1983 treats official-capacity claims against city officers as claims against the city, which requires a municipal policy, custom, or final policymaker for liability.

JOHNSON v. SIBLEY · filed 2019-09-20

Thus, Mr. Johnson’s claims against the defendants in their official capacities are actually claims against the City of Indianapolis. Claims against the City are evaluated under the mandates of Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

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

Barker v. The City of Plaquemine · filed 2019-09-20

Accordingly, the claims against the Chief in his official capacity are, in effect, claims against the municipal entity he represents, the City of Plaquemine Police Department.

A § 1983 claim against a county employee in her official capacity is a claim against the county.

Miller v. Cox · filed 2019-09-23

Official-capacity claims against Defendant Cox are, in effect, claims against Poinsett County.

Section 1983 claims against New York state officers in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Beach v. New York State Police Wurtsboro · filed 2019-09-24

Thus, plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and, accordingly, dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit retrospective injunctive relief against a state official sued in an official capacity for misconduct that has ended.

Figuereo-Mejia v. Lokey · filed 2019-09-30

Figuereo-Mejia’s request that Lokey “suffer[] the loss of his job,” Compl. 21, is barred because the Complaint does not both “allege[] an ongoing violation of federal law and seek[] relief properly characterized as prospective,” Stewart, 563 U.S. at 257 (emphasis added). On the contrary, Lokey’s alleged misconduct “occurred entirely in the past,” DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 505 (4th Cir. 1999), and ended nearly two years before Figuereo-Mejia filed this lawsuit. Accordingly, his claim for retrospective injunctive relief against Lokey in his official capacity will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1983 claims against local officials in their official capacities are redundant when the government entity is also a defendant.

Yazdi v. Lafayette Parish · filed 2019-09-30

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to assert claims under § 1983 against the Individual Defendants other than Dr. Aguillard in their official capacities, those claims are dismissed as redundant, and the Monell analysis is not applicable to the Individual Defendants.

Eleventh Amendment immunity can bar an official capacity § 1983 claim while a sufficiently pleaded individual capacity claim proceeds.

Rundles v. Arowosafe · filed 2019-10-03

The Magistrate Judge denied Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in his individual capacity because Plaintiff pled sufficient allegations against Defendant to state a § 1983 claim. Id. at 6. ... Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15) as the findings of this Court.

Section 1983 claims against state employees in their official capacities are treated as claims against the state.

Harris v. Forrester · filed 2019-10-04

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities as employees of the Tennessee Department of Corrections are actually asserted against the State of Tennessee.

A § 1983 official capacity claim requires facts supporting liability of the government entity the official represents.

Robison v. McIntyre · filed 2019-10-09

In order to prevail on an official capacity claim, plaintiff must establish the governmental entity’s liability for the alleged conduct. See Kelly, 813 F.3d at 1075. Here, plaintiff makes no attempt to allege facts supporting such liability and therefore has failed to state a claim against any of the defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against state officials may be construed as individual-capacity claims when the plaintiff disclaims any intent to sue them in their official capacities.

Turner v. Parker · filed 2019-10-09

Regardless, in light of the plaintiff’s disclaimer of any intention to state official capacity claims, the court construes the Complaint as asserting claims against the State defendants in their individual capacities only.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities when the state has not waived sovereign immunity.

Hansen v. South Dakota Department of Corrections · filed 2019-10-16

The state of South Dakota has not waived its sovereign immunity. Thus, to the extent Hansen seeks to hold defendants liable in their official capacities for money damages, the court finds that defendants are protected by sovereign immunity and are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 1983 permits a direct claim against a municipal entity when an official acts pursuant to its policy, making a parallel official-capacity claim unnecessary.

Hoke v. Swender · filed 2019-10-18

Because Monell established that a municipal entity can be sued directly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where the official acted pursuant to a municipal policy, Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, it is not necessary to bring official-capacity claims against government officials. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ First Amendment official-capacity claim against Swender is dismissed.

Section 1983 does not impose official-capacity liability on a county officer unless a county policy or custom caused the alleged injury.

Lane v. Page · filed 2019-10-18

Because Lane does not allege that he suffered an injury because of an unconstitutional policy or custom of Henry County, he does not state a claim against the County or against Page in his official capacity.

Section 1983 treats an official capacity claim against a contractor’s employee as a claim against the contractor, which requires a policy, custom, or official action causing the injury.

Little v. Corizon · filed 2019-10-21

As Nurse Knox is alleged to be a Corizon employee, the official capacity claim against her is actually directed against Corizon. To support a claim against Corizon, plaintiff “must show that there was a policy, custom, or official action that inflicted an actionable injury.” ... Plaintiff has not done this, meaning that his claim against Nurse Knox is subject to dismissal.

A § 1983 official capacity claim against a municipal officer duplicates a claim against the municipality and may be dismissed when both are sued.

Coley v. Boyett · filed 2019-10-22

The official capacity claims against Boyett and Faulkner ace DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as duplicative of the municipal liability claims against the City of Bossier City.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for money damages against state officials in their official capacities because a state is not a person under the statute.

Lewis v. Phillips · filed 2019-10-22

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

An official-capacity claim under Section 1983 against a county employee requires an allegation that a county policy or custom violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Williams v. Sizemore · filed 2019-10-23

Plaintiff failed to allege any policy or custom of Sebastian County which violated his rights. He therefore failed to state any plausible official capacity claims.

Official-capacity claims against county employees are redundant when the county is also a defendant in a § 1983 suit.

Mancilla v. County of Kern · filed 2019-10-23

Because Kern County is a defendant, naming Seals and Ackling as defendants in their official capacities is unnecessary and redundant.

Section 1983 does not allow money damages against a state official sued in an official capacity when the Eleventh Amendment bars the claim.

Whitaker v. Campbell · filed 2019-11-04

First and foremost, Plaintiff may not sue Defendant in his official capacity for money damages. Such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against county employees are duplicative when the county is also sued.

Williams v. Robinson · filed 2015-12-08

We also conclude that the official-capacity claims against the JCDC employees were subject to dismissal as duplicative of the claims against Jackson County.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim against a governmental entity only when the challenged act follows its unconstitutional policy or is committed by an official with final policymaking authority.

Johnson v. Barnes · filed 2019-11-12

Thus, CDOC could only be held liable for an unconstitutional act by one of the named Defendants if: (i) the named Defendant was acting pursuant to a specific, unconstitutional policy enacted by CDOC, or (ii) the named Defendant is of a sufficiently high rank within CDOC that he or she effectively sets the policy of CDOC by acting.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against public employees require allegations establishing their employers’ liability.

Robison v. Sanderson · filed 2019-11-12

However, as noted above, plaintiff has not demonstrated an official capacity claim because he has not alleged any liability against defendants’ respective employers.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred when the state has not waived sovereign immunity.

Brakeall v. Bieber · filed 2018-02-23

Thus, to the extent Brakeall seeks to hold defendants liable in their official capacities for money damages, the court finds that defendants are protected by sovereign immunity and are entitled to judgment on this issue as a matter of law.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a state court clerk’s office, but permits a claim for prospective injunctive relief.

Higgins v. Lake County Circuit Court Clerk's Office, The · filed 2019-03-30

Indeed, it is correct that the Eleventh Amendment shields states and state officials acting in their official capacities from suits for damages brought under § 1983. ... However, the Eleventh Amendment does not forbid suits against state officials that seek only injunctive relief. ... Therefore, the Court dismisses Count I with prejudice against the Clerk’s Office to the extent Plaintiffs seek damages but allows Plaintiffs to continue under Count I for purposes of pursuing injunctive relief.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims for declaratory relief are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when no ongoing violation of federal law is alleged and the state has not waived immunity.

Hyzy v. The State of Illinois · filed 2019-04-23

Plaintiff concedes that that official capacity claims for declaratory relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment because he does not allege an ongoing violation of federal law and the State has not waived its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The Court accepts Plaintiff’s concession and dismisses the claims against all of the Defendants in their official capacity.

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

Wallace v. Rauner · filed 2019-11-14

Plaintiffs’ official capacity claims for monetary damages are DISMISSED with prejudice.

An official-capacity Section 1983 claim against a sheriff is treated as a claim against the municipality.

Reed v. Gautreaux · filed 2019-11-15

From Plaintiff’s Complaint, it appears she has asserted claims against Sheriff Gautreaux in only his official capacity, which is essentially a claim against the municipality.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim against employees of a prison medical provider to allege a policy, custom, or official action of the provider that caused an actionable injury.

Headrick v. Glass · filed 2019-11-15

In order to state a claim against Corizon, plaintiff must allege that there was a policy, custom or official action that caused an actionable injury.

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

Postawko v. Precythe · filed 2019-11-15

As noted above, however, neither a State nor its officials are “persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A Section 1983 official capacity claim against county officials is treated as a claim against the county.

Markcum v. Tallent · filed 2019-11-18

Thus, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims are treated as claims against Howard County.

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

Russell v. Lashbrook · filed 2019-11-18

However, all official capacity claims against Lashbrook are DISMISSED without prejudice.2 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (state officials named in their official capacities may not be sued for monetary damages).

A Section 1983 complaint that does not specify the capacity in which a public official is sued asserts only an official capacity claim.

Robison v. Sanderson · filed 2019-11-18

Since plaintiff’s amended complaint is silent as to capacity for these defendants, the Court must presume that Sanderson, Hovis, and Salemen are sued in their official capacities only.

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

Murey v. The City of Chickasaw Alabama · filed 2019-11-22

Accordingly, the Court Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Defendants Burt and Reynolds in their official capacities are dismissed because Plaintiff has also brought Section 1983 claims against the City.

A § 1983 complaint that does not specify whether a public official is sued individually is treated as asserting only an official capacity claim.

Koeller v. Missouri, State of · filed 2019-11-27

As plaintiff has failed to expressly and unambiguously state that he is suing Sheriff Dickerson in an individual capacity, the Court construes his claim against her as entailing an official capacity claim only.

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

MUHAMMAD v. MACK · filed 2019-12-03

Because Defendants are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983 in their official capacities, the official capacity claims must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit an official capacity claim against a private prison warden because the warden has no official capacity under the statute.

Leslie v. LCF · filed 2019-12-03

Defendant Smith cannot be sued in his official capacity because he has no official capacity under § 1983—he is a Warden for a private prison, not a state actor.

A § 1983 suit naming a defendant only in her official capacity does not impose personal liability on her; a claim for individual damages must give notice that she is sued personally.

Carlisle v. Normand · filed 2019-12-04

Because “a § 1983 suit naming defendants only in their ‘official capacity’ does not involve personal liability to the individual defendant,” Turner v. Houma Mun. Fire & Police Civil Serv. Bd., 229 F.3d 478, 483 (5th Cir. 2000), and Plaintiffs’ complaint did not contain a short and plain statement seeking relief from Klees individually, the district court concluded that no claims against Klees remained. We agree.

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

Walker v. Butler · filed 2019-12-04

State officials named in their official capacities may not be sued for monetary damages in federal court. ... Because Plaintiff only seeks monetary damages, the official capacity claims directed against these individuals will be dismissed with prejudice.

A state and its officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” under § 1983.

Vaughn v. Gullett · filed 2019-12-05

“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” /d. Asa result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against defendants in their official capacities as it is currently plead.

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

Taylor v. Craig · filed 2019-12-09

State officials named in their official capacities may not be sued for monetary damages in federal court.

When a § 1983 complaint does not specify whether a public official is sued individually or officially, the claim is treated as an official-capacity claim only.

Cox v. Anello · filed 2019-12-09

Here, plaintiff does not indicate the capacity in which he is suing defendant Anello. Certainly, he has not expressly and unambiguously stated that he is suing Anello in his individual capacity. As such, the Court must presume that defendant Anello is sued in his official capacity only.

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

Howell v. Cook · filed 2019-12-10

To the extent Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are brought against Defendants in their official capacities, the claims are not cognizable insofar as they request money damages.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires nonconclusory allegations that a government policy or custom played a role in the alleged constitutional violation.

Faircloth v. Bowyer · filed 2019-12-10

However, plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state an official capacity claim because there are no non-conclusory allegations that a MDOC policy or custom played a role in the alleged constitutional violations.

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

Carpenter v. Horta · filed 2019-12-13

Finally, a claim against a defendant in his official capacity is a suit against the entity of which the named defendant is an agent — here, the Florida Department of Corrections.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against these defendants in their official capacities, but allows official capacity claims for injunctive relief.

Taylor v. Karimi · filed 2019-12-16

Plaintiff cannot proceed with claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against a municipal officer are duplicative when the municipality is also sued.

Reno v. Nielson · filed 2019-12-17

Turning first to the official-capacity claims, these claims are redundant of the claims against the City and County of Honolulu and are dismissed for that reason.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not persons subject to such claims.

ANDERSON v. SALERNO · filed 2019-12-17

Plaintiff is seeking only monetary damages and, therefore, his claims against these defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, n.10 (1989) (state officials, sued in their official capacities, are not “persons” subject to a damages suit under section 1983); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14 (1985).

A § 1983 official-capacity claim against county officers requires an allegation that an official policy or custom caused the injury.

Zuniga v. Calderon · filed 2019-12-19

The Court finds Zuniga’s complaint is devoid of an allegation that an official policy or custom caused his injury. ... The Court concludes Zuniga has failed to allege a cause of action under § 1983 against any defendant in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit official-capacity claims against state officials because they are not persons under the statute.

Magee v. Pike County · filed 2019-12-20

Because an official acting in his or her official capacity is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he or she cannot be sued in his or her official capacity under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities, and duplicative official capacity claims for injunctive relief may be dismissed.

Bentz v. Allsup · filed 2019-12-30

Because state officials named in their official capacities may not be sued for monetary damages, Will v.Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), and Defendant Lawrence has been added as a party in his official capacity, allowing Bentz to proceed with an official capacity claim against the other Defendants for injunctive relief would be redundant.

Section 1983 claims against a municipal officer in an official capacity are redundant when the plaintiff also sues the municipality.

Simpson v. Little · filed 2020-01-02

Although permissible, plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Chief Shirley in his official capacity is redundant because plaintiff also names the City as a defendant.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against employees are duplicative when the action also proceeds against their employer.

WALTERS v. CRANK · filed 2020-01-03

Because the action is proceeding with a claim against Wexford, any official-capacity claims against Wexford employees would be duplicative and are therefore dismissed.

Section 1983 official capacity claims against local officials are claims against the municipality and require a basis for municipal liability under Monell.

Harris v. Dart · filed 2020-01-06

This distinction matters; official capacity claims under Section 1983 are really claims against the municipality, and may proceed only under a theory of liability set forth in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a public employee as a claim against the employing government, so a duplicative claim against the employee may be dismissed.

Wilson v. Lorts · filed 2020-01-06

Because “a suit against a government officer in his official capacity is functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing governmental entity,” plaintiff’s official capacity claim against Shults is duplicative or redundant of his claim against Phelps County, and therefore subject to dismissal.

State officials sued in their official capacities for money damages are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Basham v. Hart · filed 2020-01-07

State officials sued in their official capacities for money damages are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims may be dismissed as redundant when the plaintiff also sues the government entity.

Schiff v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2020-01-08

Official-capacity claims pursuant to section 1983 “generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” ... Here, each claim brought against Breed, Farrell, Suhr, and Scott in their official capacities is also brought against the City. Therefore, the motion to dismiss Breed, Farrell, Suhr, and Scott in their official capacities is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Section 1983 claims against public officials are treated as official-capacity claims when the complaint does not expressly plead individual capacity.

Reed v. Smart · filed 2020-01-08

Here, the Complaint does not specify whether any of the MSU Defendants are being sued in an official or individual capacity. As such, the Complaint must be construed as asserting official capacity claims only.

A § 1983 claim against a government official is construed as an official-capacity claim unless the complaint clearly alleges individual capacity.

White v. Holloway · filed 2020-01-14

Because the complaint contains no clear statement that Epperly is sued in his individual capacity, the claims against him must be construed as claims against him only in his official capacity as Sheriff of Barry County, Missouri.

Official-capacity § 1983 claims against employees of a private prison medical provider require an allegation that the provider’s policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.

ROBINSON v. KIRSCH · filed 2020-01-15

As Robinson has not alleged that any policy or custom of PrimeCare caused the constitutional violations he claims, his official capacity claims fail.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state officials are barred by sovereign immunity to the extent they seek money damages.

Germano v. Cook · filed 2020-01-17

Because each of the defendants is an official of the State of Connecticut, the state’s sovereign immunity forecloses Germano from proceeding against the defendants in their official capacity to the extent that he seeks an award of money damages.

An official-capacity claim against a municipal officer requires a municipal policy or custom to establish liability under § 1983.

SCOTT v. TOWNSHIP OF NUTLEY · filed 2020-01-17

Thus, for liability to result from claims against Sergeant Tiene in his official capacity, the “policy or custom” requirements of Monell must be satisfied.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims may be dismissed when they duplicate other official-capacity claims in the same action.

Perez v. Ryan · filed 2020-01-21

Assuming that Defendants Denault, Palomino, Chavez, Coscorelli, Wickware, Hill, Reyes, and Soliz could be sued in their official capacities, such claims would be duplicative of the official capacity claims asserted in Count Two. Accordingly, the official capacity claims against these Defendants will be dismissed.

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

Scott v. Shively · filed 2020-01-22

Thus, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for money damages against Defendant in his official capacity are barred by the 11th Amendment.

Section 1983 does not make a governmental employer liable solely because it employed a person who violated someone’s federal rights.

Roberts v. Peck · filed 2020-01-22

But, such an entity may not be liable “simply because it employs a person who violated a plaintiff’s federally protected rights.”

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against police officers are dismissed as duplicative when the city they serve is also a defendant.

Owens v. Trulock · filed 2020-01-23

So, any claims against Trulock and Henry in their official capacities are really suits against the City of Horse Cave. ... As such, Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims against Trulock and Henry in their official capacities will be dismissed with prejudice.

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

Robison v. Salsmen · filed 2020-01-28

If Salsmen is an employee of the Missouri Department of Corrections, plaintiff's claim fails because the State of Missouri is not a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Money damages claims against state employees in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment because they are treated as suits against the state.

WILLIAMS v. CARTER · filed 2020-01-29

Official-capacity claims against state employees “are treated as suits against the states themselves,” Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d 591, 592 (7th Cir. 2011), and such claims for money damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against Tennessee correctional officials sued in their official capacities because those claims are against the State, which has not waived its immunity.

Rice v. Northeast Correctional Complex · filed 2020-02-03

Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against officers in their official capacities are treated as claims against their government employer and are dismissed as redundant when that employer is also sued.

Robinson v. City of Sikeston, Missouri · filed 2020-02-06

Courts have recognized that a § 1983 claim against a state officer in his or her official capacity is functionally equivalent to a claim against the employing governmental entity and, accordingly, must be dismissed as redundant to the claims asserted against the government entity.

Section 1983 official capacity claims are dismissed when the plaintiff seeks monetary damages from defendants only in their individual capacities.

Golden v. Cox · filed 2020-02-11

Because Plaintiff seeks only monetary damages from the defendants in their individual capacities, all intended official capacity claims against the defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1983 claims against an official in her official capacity are redundant when the plaintiff also sues the agency.

Mabry v. City of East Chicago · filed 2020-02-11

The official capacity claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are redundant with the claims brought against ECHA, so the § 1983 claims against Cauley in her official capacity are dismissed.

A § 1983 claim against an officer in his official capacity is treated as a claim against the government entity and may be dismissed when the entity is also sued.

Phillips v. City of Leeds, Alabama · filed 2020-02-13

Because any claim asserted against Officer Scott in his official capacity is, in effect, a claim against the City of Leeds, Officer Scott is entitled to summary judgment.

Sovereign immunity bars monetary damages under § 1983 against the officials sued in their official capacities.

Parsley v. SWVRJA · filed 2020-02-18

Finally, Sheriff Puckett contends that any claim for monetary damages against him in his official capacity should be dismissed on the ground of sovereign immunity. ... I agree, and accordingly, I will grant the Motion to Dismiss as to all official capacity claims for monetary damages.

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

Jones v. Bolton · filed 2020-02-18

However, LMDC is not subject to suit under § 1983, both because a state agency is not a “person” subject to liability under Section 1983, and because the “Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 suits against a state, its agencies, and its officials sued in their official capacities for damages.” ... The Court therefore dismisses all § 1983 official capacity claims.

Section 1983 claims for money damages against Pennsylvania prison officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

Rivers v. Mahally · filed 2020-02-18

Hence, Rivers’ claims for money damages against the Defendants in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

A § 1983 official capacity claim against a township official is redundant when the plaintiff also sues the township.

Lahovski v. Rush Township, Pennsylvania · filed 2020-02-18

Initially, to the extent that plaintiffs have sued Liebensperger and Gilbert both in their individual and official capacities, the court finds that the claims against these two defendants in their official capacity should be dismissed since they are both being sued as officials of Rush Township and the claims against them in their official capacity are redundant of plaintiffs’ claims against the Township.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a public officer as a claim against the governmental entity.

Jaso v. Schlect · filed 2020-02-19

An official-capacity claim is, in effect, a claim made against the governmental entity—in this case, Dawson County.

Personal immunity defenses do not defeat § 1983 claims against municipal officials sued only in their official capacities for nonmonetary relief.

Nelson v. Constant · filed 2020-02-20

It follows, then, that defendants’ immunities arguments must fail.

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

Beasley 396740 v. Buchanan · filed 2020-02-21

An official-capacity defendant is absolutely immune from monetary damages. ... Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims the suit for monetary relief against the Defendants in their respective official capacity.

Section 1983 treats official-capacity claims against school district employees as claims against the district, so the employees need not remain as duplicate defendants.

Doe v. Brighton School District 27J · filed 2020-02-24

Because the official capacity claims against those individuals are, in essence, a claim against the District, which is already a named defendant in this lawsuit, there is no reason to duplicatively name any of these Individual Defendants in their official capacity as well. On the Court’s own motion, therefore, they are also dismissed in their official capacities, and will therefore no longer be party defendants in this action in any capacity.

Under § 1983, suing a municipal official in an official capacity is equivalent to suing the municipality.

Kampfer v. Argotsinger · filed 2020-02-25

The Court attributes this confusion to Plaintiff failing to understand that suing a municipal official—such as a member of the Town Board—in her or his official capacity is tantamount to suing the municipality itself.

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

Duncan v. Embree · filed 2020-02-26

Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks money damages from Defendants in their official capacities, he fails to state a cognizable claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a Virginia sheriff in his official capacity because the sheriff has Eleventh Amendment immunity and is not a person under the section.

Reynolds v. Dickenson County Sheriff Dept. · filed 2020-02-27

Thus, all § 1983 claims seeking money damages against the sheriff in his official capacity are subject to dismissal.

Section 1983 does not permit retrospective money damages against a state official in an official capacity.

Fidler v. Touchette · filed 2020-02-28

As Defendants correctly argue, however, a constitutional claim for retrospective money damages against a state official in his official capacity cannot be maintained under Section 1983.

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

Nash v. Gondek · filed 2020-03-03

To the extent that Nash sues the defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages, those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Nash’s claims for money damages against the individual defendants in their official capacities are dismissed.

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

Edwards v. Kanode · filed 2020-03-05

Neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a municipal policy or custom caused the injury to sustain an official-capacity claim.

Carter v. Gautreaux · filed 2020-03-06

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts that would be sufficient to support a claim against Defendants in their official capacities. Plaintiff does not articulate any specific policy or ... custom and does not plead any facts in support of allegations that Defendants adopted or promulgated a policy or custom that caused his injury.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims for injunctive relief require a state or prison policy, custom, or practice responsible for the alleged violation.

Murillo v. Godfrey · filed 2020-03-09

Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against defendants in their official capacity, such claims also fail because plaintiff does not identify any custom, policy, or practice of the state or prison that is responsible for the conduct alleged in the Complaint.