42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 treats a Monell claim against an officer in his official capacity as a claim against the municipality.

Johnson v. City of Worcester · filed 2020-03-09

However, Monell claims are suits against a municipality and therefore, as to such claim, Plaintiff must be suing Gemme in his official capacity (and thus the City is the actual Defendant).

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

Edwards v. White · filed 2020-03-10

The court must grant the motion to dismiss as to Edwards’ claims for damages against the defendants in their official capacities. Neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose official-capacity liability on local officers without allegations connecting the injury to municipal policy or final policymaking authority.

Vette v. Montrose County Sheriffs Office · filed 2020-03-11

Moreover, “a municipality cannot be liable under § 1983 for acts of a municipal official in his official capacity unless that official possesses final policymaking authority to establish municipal policy with respect to acts in question.” Jantzen, 188 F.3d at 1259. ... Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants Sanders and Gustin were in policymaking positions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims for money damages and injunctive relief against the defendants in their official capacities are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state employees are barred by sovereign immunity when the state has not waived immunity and the plaintiff seeks no prospective injunctive relief.

Burks v. Bauman · filed 2020-03-13

In the instant case, Defendants are state employees and Michigan has not waived its sovereign immunity. Also, Plaintiff is not requesting prospective injunctive relief. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities will be dismissed.

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

Grove v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) · filed 2020-03-16

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Mohr in his official capacity, however, such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states or state agencies; monetary-damages claims against state employees in their official capacities are treated as claims against the state agency.

Farmer v. Johnson · filed 2020-03-17

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

A Section 1983 claim against an Ohio common pleas court employee in his official capacity is treated as a claim against the court and is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

R. v. Village Of Middleport Ohio · filed 2020-03-17

A suit against a government official in his official capacity is treated as a suit against the government entity. ... The Meigs County Common Pleas Court is entitled to immunity. Judgment is GRANTED for Tucker on any claim against Tucker in his official capacity as a probation officer/bailiff/clerk of the Court.

Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages claims against its officials in their official capacities.

Howard v. Fisk · filed 2020-03-18

“Congress, in passing § 1983, had no intention to disturb the States’ Eleventh Amendment Immunity.” Id. Arkansas and its agencies and officials have not consented to suit in federal court. See Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 492-93 (8th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Fisk in her official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Requena v. Newkirk · filed 2020-03-19

Furthermore, state officers acting in their official capacity are not considered “persons” against whom a claim for damages can be brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for money damages against a state officer sued in his official capacity.

Cisco v. McCarty · filed 2020-03-19

Thus, because Plaintiff seeks money damages from a state officer in his official capacity, he fails to allege a cognizable claim under § 1983.

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

RIVERA v. SCINICO · filed 2020-03-19

Suits against state officials acting in their official capacities are really suits against the employing government agency, and as such, are also barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 money damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment when sought from Texas correctional officers in their official capacities.

Prince McCoy v. Esquivel · filed 2020-03-20

But “the Eleventh Amendment bars recovering § 1983 money damages from [Texas correctional] officers in their official capacity.”

A § 1983 due process claim against a superintendent in his official capacity is redundant when the school district is also sued on the claim.

Winslow v. Pulaski Academy and Central School District · filed 2020-03-20

However, insofar as Plaintiff alleges this claim against Defendant Hartwell in his official capacity, the Court dismisses that claim as redundant.

Section 1983 official capacity claims require a government policy or custom that violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Alverson v. Runion · filed 2020-03-24

Plaintiff has identified no policy or custom of the Sebastian County Detention Center or Sebastian County Sheriff’s Office which violated his rights. Plaintiff, therefore, fails to state any plausible official capacity claim against any of the Defendants.

Section 1983 does not permit money-damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not “persons” under the section.

Goodrich v. Cavanaugh · filed 2020-03-24

As to Plaintiff’s official-capacity claim against Defendant Hopkins County Circuit Court Judge Brantley, state officials sued in their official capacities for money damages are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Official-capacity § 1983 claims for monetary relief against local officers generally require an official policy, while claims seeking prospective relief may proceed.

Rogers v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department · filed 2020-03-25

Typically, actions against officers in their official capacities, being synonymous with the local governing body of which they are members, cannot proceed under § 1983 where the plaintiff seeks monetary relief and the action is not based on “a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” ... However, where a plaintiff seeks prospective relief, as here, certain claims may proceed.

A § 1983 plaintiff must allege facts establishing a proper basis for an official-capacity claim against officers.

Anderson v. Pastuna · filed 2020-03-26

Finally, he indicates that he is seeking to bring claims against the individual officers in their official and individual capacity, but has not met the standard for establishing that their official capacity is proper.

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

Sangathit v. Lawrence · filed 2020-03-31

As previously stated in the original merit review order of the complaint, state officials named in their official capacities may not be sued for monetary damages.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state official must be brought against the official in an individual capacity.

Thompson v. Swisher · filed 2020-04-06

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to bring claims against C/O Swisher in his official capacity, those claims will be dismissed.

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

Royal v. Kirschling · filed 2020-04-13

As the state is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983, Will, 491 U.S. at 64, Royal may not bring a § 1983 claim against the defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state officials in their official capacities because a state is not a “person” under the section.

Royal v. University of Maryland Graduate School & School of Nursing - Doctor of Nursing Practice · filed 2020-04-13

As the state is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983, Will, 491 U.S. at 64, Royal may not bring a § 1983 claim against the defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 damages claims against municipal officers in their official capacities require a plausible allegation that the wrongdoing occurred pursuant to a municipal policy or practice.

Watkins v. Doe · filed 2020-04-13

As with the original complaint, the amended complaint lacks any allegations which plausibly suggest that any of the alleged wrongdoing occurred pursuant to a municipal policy or practice. Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiff seeks monetary damages under Section 1983 against any defendant in his or her official capacity, such claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

An official capacity § 1983 claim against an officer duplicates a claim against the officer’s governmental entity, but duplication does not warrant dismissal when the parallel claim has been withdrawn.

Tolbert v. Gusman · filed 2020-04-16

Accordingly, the official capacity claims against Movants and Gusman are indeed duplicative claims against the Sheriff’s Office.13 However, since the filing of this motion, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their official capacity claim against Gusman. Therefore, Movants’ argument for dismissal on this ground must fail.

Under § 1983, an official-capacity claim against an officer is treated as a claim against the employing city and fails when the claims against the city have been dismissed.

Eslinger v. City of Kent · filed 2020-04-17

This Court has already twice dismissed all claims against Kent. Therefore, any claims against the officers in their official capacities fail as a matter of law and are dismissed.

Section 1983 official capacity claims against school officials are redundant when the school district is also sued for the same conduct.

DOE v. COLQUITT COUNTY GEORGIA SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2020-04-21

As explained in Busby, Plaintiffs’ official capacity claims against these Defendants are ... indistinguishable from those claims asserted against the School District. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ § 1983 official capacity claims against Defendants Howell, Horne, Harden, Southwell, and Smith.

A § 1983 plaintiff may give sufficient notice of an individual-capacity claim through the complaint and later filings even without expressly labeling the claim.

Carney v. Columbus City Schools Board of Education · filed 2020-04-21

When a § 1983 plaintiff fails to affirmatively plead capacity in the complaint, the Sixth Circuit instructs courts to apply a “course of proceedings” test to determine whether § 1983 defendants have received sufficient notice that a plaintiff intends on holding them individually liable absent clear labeling. Id. ... Taken as a whole, the Amended Complaint provides sufficient notice to Defendants that they are being sued as individuals.

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

Morris v. Bessemer City Board of Education · filed 2020-04-22

The claims against Stewart in his official capacity are redundant.

A § 1983 official-capacity claim against a county warden is treated as a claim against the county.

Wilson v. Mattson · filed 2020-04-28

Wilson’s official capacity claims against Mattson are the equivalent of a lawsuit against Minnehaha County.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against officers are duplicative when their government employers are also sued.

Morrison v. Trulock · filed 2020-04-30

The claims against Movants in their official capacities are therefore duplicative of the claims against the police department and the city. These claims are therefore dismissed.

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

Harvey, Jr. v. Wexford Health Sources · filed 2020-05-01

But he cannot proceed with claims for monetary damages against them in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit money-damages claims against state defendants in their official capacities when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Edwards v. Lastrapes · filed 2020-05-06

Further, Plaintiff does not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s proper conclusions that (1) Plaintiff is barred by the Eleventh Amendment from suing Defendants in their official capacities for money damages, see Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 742 (5th Cir. 2002); ... The Court therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Section 1983 claims against local officials in their official capacities are duplicative when the same claims are brought against the local governments.

Greens at Chester, LLC v. Town of Chester · filed 2020-05-08

Third, Plaintiff’s claims for relief against James Farr, Robert Valentine, Alexander Jamieson, and Steven Neuhaus (the “Individual Defendants”) sued in their official capacities are dismissed as duplicative of the claims brought against the County and Town.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against employees are duplicative of a claim against the entity they represent.

BRAMLEY v. MILLER · filed 2020-05-12

The claims against Copeland and Miller in their official capacities are dismissed as duplicative of the claims against Aramark.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim as duplicative when the employing municipality is also sued for the same conduct.

L. G. v. Columbia Public Schools · filed 2020-05-12

Thus, the official-capacity claim against Edwards and the claim against the City of Columbia are duplicative, and the claim against Edwards in her official capacity is dismissed.

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

Johnson v. Leidholt · filed 2020-05-13

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

Section 1983 requires an alleged policy or custom to support an official-capacity claim against a county department.

Walker v. Miller · filed 2020-05-14

While Thomae was also sued in his official capacity, a claim which is construed as one against the Medina County Sheriffs Department, no allegations support this claim. In particular there is no allegation of a policy or custom, even assuming plaintiff had demonstrated that he suffered a constitutional violation.

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

Dixon v. Davis · filed 2020-05-18

“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Id. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Davis, Brooks, and Layton, employees of the State of Missouri, in their official capacities.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim for injunctive relief against an official who can implement it; redundant official-capacity claims may be dismissed.

Harvey, Jr. v. Brookhart · filed 2020-05-19

As stated in the initial Merit Review Order, Warden Brookhart is the most appropriate official capacity defendant to implement the injunctive relief requested. See Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 687 (7th Cir. 2001). Allowing Harvey to proceed with an official capacity claim against the remaining defendants would be redundant.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state official cannot be sued for damages in an official capacity.

Cosby v. Boyd · filed 2020-05-20

The Court construes this assertion as a claim for punitive damages against Officer Boyd in his individual capacity because any claim for damages against Officer Boyd in his official capacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Under § 1983, an official-capacity claim against a sheriff duplicates a claim against the county and may be dismissed when both are sued.

Carskadon v. Armor Correctional Health Services Inc · filed 2020-05-29

The Court agrees that the referenced claims are duplicative. The Court, however, finds that dismissal of the claims against the Sheriff is appropriate. ... All claims against Sheriff Taylor in his official capacity shall be dismissed without prejudice.

In a Section 1983 action, a prison official may be added in his official capacity to implement injunctive relief on a surviving claim.

Hoskins v. Chapman · filed 2020-06-04

Jeff Dennison, in his official capacity only, is added to the case for the purpose of implementing any injunctive relief as it relates to Count 1.

Damages claims under § 1983 against state officials in their official capacities are barred when the state has not waived sovereign immunity.

Augustine v. Pitchford · filed 2020-06-04

Because the state of South Dakota has not waived its sovereign immunity, Augustine’s claims against defendants, Pitchford, Young, Cook, Schreurs, Bieber, and Carpenter, in their official capacities for monetary damages are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-ii) and 1915A(b)(1).

Section 1983 permits an official capacity claim against a Louisiana sheriff as the final policymaker for a parish jail, despite the appointment of a compliance director.

Johnson v. Gusman · filed 2020-06-10

Defendants’ argument, that the appointment of the Compliance Director means the Sheriff does not have final decision making authority and relieves the Sheriff’s Office of responsibility, lacks merit for several reasons.

Section 1983 permits monetary damages against officials in their individual capacities and injunctive relief against an appropriate official-capacity defendant.

Hoskins v. Rueter · filed 2020-06-12

Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages may only be made against Defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 claims against correctional officers may proceed in their individual capacities even when official-capacity claims are dismissed.

McFarthing v. Colone · filed 2020-06-16

As explained here, Defendants’ motion is denied as to Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims. Any official capacity claims or claims for injunctive relief are dismissed.

Section 1983 permits dismissal of an official-capacity claim as redundant when the government entity is also a defendant.

Castleberry v. Cuyahoga County · filed 2020-06-16

Whether or not it is required, the Court finds that dismissal of official-capacity claims is permitted and judicious when the reasonable entity is also named as a defendant in the case.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state agency or its employees in their official capacities; individual-capacity claims against employees may proceed.

Ballard v. Boyd · filed 2020-06-17

Accordingly, all claims alleged against NDCS and all official-capacity claims alleged against the NDCS employees must be dismissed. Only individual-capacity claims alleged against NDCS employees are potentially maintainable under § 1983.

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

Hardin v. Riley-Layton · filed 2020-06-22

Such claims are barred because a state is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983, and because the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state officials acting in their official capacity.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims require facts linking the alleged constitutional violation to the employing governmental entity’s policy, custom, or failure to train.

Wilkins v. Hann · filed 2020-06-26

However, plaintiff has not demonstrated that his constitutional rights were violated due to an unconstitutional policy, custom, or failure to train on the part of the governmental entities employing defendants.

Section 1983 does not provide for damages claims against state agencies or state officials sued in their official capacities.

CALLAWAY v. DAVIS · filed 2020-06-26

It is well-established that § 1983 does not provide for damages claims against state agencies or state officials in their official capacities.

Section 1983 requires an official capacity claim against a municipal officer to identify a municipal policy or custom that caused the rights violation.

JACKSON v. ROSEN · filed 2020-06-26

Because Jackson has failed to allege any policy or custom of Marple Township that violated his rights, his official capacity claims against Rosen are not plausible and are dismissed without prejudice.

State officials sued in their official capacities are not persons under § 1983 when the plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

THE ESTATE OF ULISSES M. RODRIGUEZ v. JOHNSON · filed 2020-06-29

The official capacity claims against the Supervisory Defendants, however, will be dismissed as Plaintiffs seek only monetary damages.

Section 1983 claims for monetary and declaratory relief against state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

McGee v. Pacheco · filed 2020-06-30

Therefore, Defendants, in their official capacities, are immune from claims for monetary and declaratory relief under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against officers may be dismissed as duplicative when their employing entities are also defendants.

Faulkner v. Martin · filed 2020-07-08

The claims against Movants in their official capacities are therefore duplicative of the claims against the police department and the city and are dismissed.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff seeking to hold a county liable to allege that a constitutional violation resulted from an official policy, custom, or practice.

Snoderly v. Trinity Foods · filed 2020-07-13

To establish Benton 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.” ... Other than stating the sexual harassment has been allowed to occur, Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of any such policy or custom. The official capacity claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims require a government policy or custom connected to the rights violation and allegations identifying a policymaker.

Davis v. Peters · filed 2020-07-13

The Court agrees. Plaintiff does not allege any facts as to any policy or custom that caused the deprivation of his civil rights. Plaintiff also does not allege that Defendants should be considered policy makers. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), that he is entitled to relief for excessive force against Defendants in their official capacities.

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

Howard v. Little · filed 2020-07-14

Howard’s claims against Little in his official capacity are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment.

A Section 1983 official-capacity claim against an officer duplicates a claim against the government entity when both rest on the same facts.

Reyes v. Salazar · filed 2020-07-15

Therefore, a § 1983 suit against a person in his official capacity is duplicative of a suit against the government entity, itself, when based upon the same facts and circumstances.

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

Hailey v. Mullins · filed 2020-07-21

Claims brought against defendants in their official capacities are not cognizable in § 1983 lawsuits because neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state employees in their official capacities because the state is not a person under the statute.

Carter v. Hillsboro Treatment Center · filed 2020-07-24

To the extent that plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, plaintiff's official capacity claims must be dismissed because he is missing an essential element of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.

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

Murphy v. Pike County Detention Center · filed 2020-07-27

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

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff bringing an official capacity claim against a public employee to establish the government employer’s liability.

Phillips v. Gordon · filed 2020-07-29

In order to prevail on an official capacity claim, plaintiff would have to establish the governmental entity’s liability for the alleged conduct. Kelly v. City of Omaha, Neb., 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff has not alleged such governmental liability, and therefore his official capacity claims against the individual defendants will be dismissed.

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

Johnson v. Brown · filed 2020-07-29

Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks monetary damages under § 1983 against any named defendant remaining in this action in his or her official capacity, such claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred.

Johnson v. Perez · filed 2020-07-29

Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks monetary damages under § 1983 against any named defendant remaining in this action in his or her official capacity, such claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials in their official capacities because a state is not a person subject to the statute.

Salazar v. M.E. Spearman · filed 2020-07-30

California is not a “person” subject to Section 1983, and the Eleventh Amendment bars damages actions against state officials in their official capacity.

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

Carter v. Castelo · filed 2020-07-30

California is not a “person” subject to Section 1983, and the Eleventh Amendment bars damages actions against state officials in their official capacity.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against individual defendants may be dismissed when identical claims are brought against the public entity that employs them.

Doe v. City of Harrisburg · filed 2020-08-10

A court may dismiss official-capacity claims against individual defendants when identical claims are brought against the agency that employs them.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state officers require allegations that a state or prison policy, practice, or custom caused the harm.

Malbrue v. Morales · filed 2020-08-11

Plaintiff fails to allege any facts demonstrating that his harms resulted from any policy, practice, or custom of the State of California or its agencies.

Section 1983 does not allow damages suits against state officials in their official capacities because they are not “persons” subject to suit under the statute.

Brown v. Shaw · filed 2020-08-11

Defendant Judge Shaw, a state official sued in her official capacity for money damages, is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against an officer in his official capacity are redundant when the plaintiff also sues the government entity directly.

Kouider v. Parma City School District · filed 2020-08-19

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Baez in his official capacity are redundant and are hereby DISMISSED.

Section 1983 claims against officials in their individual capacities require factual allegations showing what each official did or failed to do.

Reed v. City of Decatur, Alabama · filed 2020-08-20

No factual detail about what Mayor Bowling or Chief Allen did, or failed to do, is provided. ... Consequently, this aspect of the defendants’ motion is due to be granted.

A state official sued in an official capacity is not a person subject to monetary damages under § 1983, although prospective injunctive or declaratory relief remains available.

Marrow v. Lawler · filed 2020-08-20

The Court agrees. “A state official sued in his or her official capacity is not a ‘person’ for purposes of § 1983 when a plaintiff seeks monetary damages, as the Supreme Court has not construed § 1983 as an abrogation of the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.”

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

Kennedy v. County of Solano · filed 2020-08-25

The Court does find, however, that the official capacity allegations against the individual Defendants are redundant of those claims against the City, and they are thus DISMISSED with leave to amend.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials in their official capacities because a state is not a person under the section.

Williams v. Black · filed 2020-08-25

California is not a “person” subject to Section 1983, and the Eleventh Amendment bars damages actions against state officials in their official capacity. ... For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities fail.

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

Jason II v. Mr. Call · filed 2020-08-26

Defendants next assert that any claims for monetary damages raised against them in their official capacities must be dismissed. The Court agrees. ... “*[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983,’” Id. at *4 (quoting Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)).

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

Ross v. Teabo · filed 2020-08-26

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims must be dismissed because he is missing an essential element of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a policy or custom of the defendant’s employer caused the constitutional violation.

Houston v. Bredeman · filed 2020-08-26

Therefore, to state an official capacity claim against Dr. Bredeman, plaintiff must allege that a Corizon policy or custom is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation.

An official-capacity claim against a school superintendent is redundant when the school board is also sued.

Davis v. Board of Education of Waukegan Community Unit School District No. 60 · filed 2020-04-13

Defendants argue that claims against Plascencia in her official capacity should be dismissed as redundant on his claims against the Board. ... Plaintiff does not respond to this argument, thereby conceding it.

Section 1983 allows the current prison warden to be sued in his official capacity to implement injunctive relief.

Hoskins v. Swisher · filed 2020-06-16

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, Jeff Dennison (official capacity only), the current warden of Pinckneyville, is added to the case. All other claims against Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED without prejudice.

State officials sued in their official capacities cannot face monetary damages under § 1983.

Thornton v. Baldwin · filed 2020-08-27

State officials named in their official capacities may not be sued for monetary damages in federal court, and the most appropriate government official responsible for ensuring that injunctive relief is carried out is the acting warden.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal officials are redundant when the municipality is also a defendant.

Dietrich v. County Of Orange · filed 2020-09-01

Where, as here, the County itself is also a defendant, claims against County officials in their official capacity are redundant and should consequently be dismissed.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against an officer as a claim against the governmental entity; when the entity is not liable, the official-capacity claim fails too.

Price v. Kanago · filed 2020-09-02

Moreover, because a § 1983 suit against an officer in his or her official capacity is “another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent,” Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 776 (11th Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted), the claims against the officers in their official capacity must likewise be dismissed.

An official-capacity claim under Section 1983 against a county officer requires an official policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation.

Horne v. Chick · filed 2020-09-07

In order to attribute liability to Officer Chick in his official capacity under Section 1983, Plaintiff must allege that “the moving force of the constitutional violation” was an official policy or custom.

A § 1983 complaint that does not expressly sue public officers in their individual capacities is treated as asserting official-capacity claims.

Kimbrough v. Hogan · filed 2020-09-09

However, because the Complaint does not specify that Defendants are being sued in their individual capacities, the court must presume they are being sued only in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against municipal officers in their official capacities are redundant when the plaintiff brings the same claims against the municipality.

Martin v. Clark County · filed 2020-09-14

Because Daniel brings the same claims against Clark County, the claims against John and McAnally in their official capacities are redundant. I therefore dismiss the § 1981 and § 1983 claims against John and McAnally in their official capacities.

When a § 1983 complaint does not specify the capacity in which defendants are sued, the claims are treated as official-capacity claims.

Cabanag v. Tripp · filed 2020-09-14

Liberally construing these facts, Cabanag is alleging that her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful seizure has been violated and she asserts jurisdiction through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Cabanag has not specified in what capacity she is suing any of the defendants, this court treats the claims against them as only in their official capacities.

A Section 1983 claim against an official in an official capacity is subsumed by a claim against the official’s governmental employer.

Luttrell v. Hart · filed 2020-09-22

Thus, Plaintiff’s claim against Sheriff Hart in his official capacity is subsumed by Plaintiff’s cause of action under Section 1983 against the County of Santa Cruz, the governmental employer.

Section 1983 claims against a school administrator in an official capacity are duplicative when the school board is also sued and should be dismissed.

Roe v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · filed 2020-09-22

Both the Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit have held claims against school administrators in their official capacity when the school board is also a defendant are duplicative in nature and should be dismissed. ... Accordingly, to the extent the claims against Defendant Bosco are premised on him acting in his official capacity, Defendant Bosco’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against officers are redundant when the employing government entity is also sued.

Dudley v. Jackson County · filed 2020-09-23

Consequently, based on the current record, the Court dismisses all official capacity claims against the moving Defendants in which Jackson County is also named as a Defendant.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against officers are treated as claims against the government entity they represent.

Burton v. City and County of Hawaii · filed 2020-09-24

“Since official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent,” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978), such suits should “be treated as a suit against the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (citation omitted). “It is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity.” Id. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the claims against Watkins, Isotani, and Takenishi in their official capacities with prejudice.

Section 1983 official capacity claims require an agency policy, practice, or custom to have caused the alleged injury.

Jones 190298 v. Harris · filed 2020-09-25

In Counts Two through Eight, Plaintiff does not allege that any ADCRR policy, practice, or custom has resulted in his alleged injuries. These claims are premised on Defendants’ alleged negligence or retaliation against Plaintiff rather than ADCRR procedure. (See doc. 27 at 4–7, 35–40.) Since Plaintiff has not claimed that ADCRR policy caused his alleged injuries, the Court will dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants Jordan, Dison, Riker, and Shinn, and against Defendant Harris in Count Four.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a municipal officer may be dismissed as redundant when the municipality is also sued and no injunctive relief is sought.

Castillo v. City of Watsonville · filed 2020-09-29

A § 1983 “official capacity suit against a municipal officer is equivalent to a suit against the entity.” ... Because Plaintiff also names the City as a defendant and brings a Monell style claim against it while not seeking injunctive relief, her claim against Chief Honda in his official capacity is dismissed as redundant.

When a § 1983 complaint does not specify the capacity in which officials are sued, the course of proceedings can establish whether the claims are against them individually, officially, or both.

Jones v. Barlow · filed 2020-09-29

Applying the course-of-proceedings test to Mr. Jones’ amended complaint, the Court determines that the Defendants are being sued in both their individual and official capacities.

Official capacity claims under § 1983 against county officials are redundant when the county is also sued.

Halik v. Brown · filed 2020-09-30

Here, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Brown, Carey, David, and Elder, in their official capacities, are duplicative of the claims against El Paso County. As such, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Brown, Carey, David, and Elder, in their official capacities, are dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities may seek prospective relief for ongoing constitutional violations.

Crispin v. Haber · filed 2020-10-19

Crispin may only proceed against a DOC official in his or her official capacity to the extent he alleges an ongoing constitutional violation.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer to allege a policy or custom that contributed to the rights violation.

Griffin v. Salisbury Police Department · filed 2020-10-19

As a result, Plaintiff’s claim against Officer Ross in his official capacity must be dismissed with prejudice as it does not allege any such “policy or custom” that played a part in the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s rights.

An official-capacity claim against a sheriff is treated as a claim against the county and may be dismissed when the county is also sued.

Bauer v. Fitzhugh · filed 2020-10-19

A sheriff sued in his or her official capacity is typically deemed to be a suit against the county. ... The claims against Defendant Fitzhugh, therefore, are dismissed with respect to both Count I and Count II, and he shall be dismissed as a party to this action.

Section 1983 claims against officials in their official capacities may be dismissed while other claims proceed.

Estate of Nino Bosco, by and through sucessor in interest, Frauka Kozar v. County of Sonoma · filed 2020-10-21

The Court grants the Motion to Dismiss with respect to Bosco’s claims against Essick and Awad in their official capacities.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a county official as a claim against the county, making the official-capacity claim redundant when the county is also sued.

Lemaster v. Lawrence County, Kentucky · filed 2020-10-21

Because the official-capacity claims against Defendant Carter are, in practical terms, claims against Lawrence County, Plaintiffs’ official-capacity claims are dismissed as superfluous.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against California or state prison officers sued in their official capacities.

Olguin v. Gastelo · filed 2020-10-22

California is not a “person” subject to Section 1983, and the Eleventh Amendment bars damages actions against state officials in their official capacity.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a police officer as a claim against the municipality, requiring a municipal policy that caused the alleged injury.

Toyee v. Sterling Heights Police Department · filed 2020-10-22

A claim against a police officer in his official capacity is tantamount to a claim against the municipality that employs him, and thus, the legal requirements for municipal liability described in the Court’s Order to Show Cause2 apply.

A Section 1983 claim may proceed against a prison doctor in his individual capacity when the complaint alleges his own deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs.

Gillotte v. Campbell · filed 2020-10-22

In conclusion, the Court has reviewed the complaint pursuant to the PLRA and finds that the complaint states an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs claim under Section 1983 against Dr. Campbell in his individual capacity.

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

Pritchett v. Griffie · filed 2020-10-26

An official-capacity claim is functionally a suit against the entity an individual works for and requires “proof that a policy or custom of the entity violated the plaintiff's rights, and the only type of immunity available is one belonging to the entity itself.” See id.

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

Knight v. Anderson · filed 2020-10-28

The court will not allow the plaintiff to proceed against any of the defendants in their official capacities because he seeks only monetary damages. Where a plaintiff seeks other than injunctive relief, “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”

An official capacity claim under § 1983 requires a policy, custom or practice of the government entity that caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Caldwell v. Wright · filed 2020-10-29

The complaint contains no allegation of an official policy of the Merrillville Police Department that is responsible for Caldwell’s allegedly unconstitutional treatment, nor of any established custom or practice of the MPD that governed or directed Wright’s challenged behavior. Caldwell has not articulated a viable official capacity claim under §1983 based on the allegations of the complaint.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against local officials are duplicative when the plaintiff also sues the local government entity.

McGhee v. Talladega City Board of Education · filed 2020-10-30

This is unnecessary because Plaintiffs are also suing the Talladega City Board of Education.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff seeking monetary damages from a state official to sue that official in an individual capacity.

Robinson v. Calloway · filed 2020-10-30

Rather, if a plaintiff seeks monetary damages against a state official, he must bring the suit against the official in his or her individual capacity.

A state officer sued in an official capacity is not a person subject to a claim for monetary damages under § 1983.

CISLO v. BANTRY GROUP CORPORATION · filed 2020-11-02

Therefore, a suit against an officer of a state agency in his official capacity is a suit against the state, and the state is not a "person" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

PARIS v. LAMAS · filed 2020-11-02

To the extent Paris again intended to sue the Defendants, all of whom are employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, in their official capacities, his claims are essentially claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Wilson v. City of Walnut Creek · filed 2020-11-03

Therefore, to the extent plaintiff alleges federal claims against defendants in their official capacity, those claims are treated as claims against the City and are redundant.

When a § 1983 complaint does not specify capacity, the relief sought determines whether the defendant is sued in an official or individual capacity.

Peirick v. Dudek · filed 2020-11-12

When a complaint fails to specify whether a § 1983 claim is brought against a defendant in his official or individual capacity, resolution of the issue turns on the relief sought.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims seeking injunctive relief require a practice, policy, or procedure that causes the constitutional violation.

Brister v. Cain · filed 2020-11-12

First, the plaintiffs offer no specific argument as to how or why the facts sought to be judicially noticed would be relevant to proving a custom or official policy of the defendants. Indeed, none of the facts sought to be judicially noticed involve conduct on the part of the defendants. The facts of the deaths would thus have no bearing on whether the defendants maintained (or are maintaining) an official policy or custom.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims require an allegation that the defendant entity’s policy or custom played a part in the violation of federal law.

Michelson v. Wellpath · filed 2020-11-12

Plaintiff has failed to allege that his rights were violated by Defendants’ custom or policy, and therefore, his § 1983 claims against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed.

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

Nunez v. Wolf · filed 2020-11-13

Mr. Nunez’s claim for damages asserted under 42 U.S.C. §1983 may not proceed against the Defendants in their official capacities.

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

Cox v. Morley · filed 2020-11-18

Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiff seeks monetary damages under Section 1983 against any defendant in his or her official capacity, such claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 bars damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities but permits claims for prospective injunctive relief against them.

Niblock v. University of Kentucky · filed 2020-11-30

Accordingly, any claim under § 1983 for damages against Barnhart and Capilouto in their official capacities must be dismissed. ... Thus, Niblock may assert a § 1983 claim against Capilouto and Barnhart in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief.

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

Washington v. Madden · filed 2020-11-30

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

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a municipal official is treated as a claim against the municipality.

Day v. Baton Rouge City Police · filed 2020-11-30

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against the Mayor are, in effect, also claims against the City.

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

PERRY v. PLOUSIS · filed 2020-11-30

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against a state official sued in his or her official capacity, however, are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Since Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants for monetary damages are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, these official-capacity claims must be dismissed.

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

(PC) Polk v. Lattimore · filed 2020-12-04

Here no additional set of facts could be pled either to allow a monetary claim against defendant in his official capacity; to permit declaratory or injunctive relief against defendant Baron; or to name the Director of Adult Institutions as a defendant because any such claim would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities, but monetary damages are unavailable.

Sileoni v. Thomson · filed 2020-12-04

Plaintiff has not provided facts or requested injunctive relief that would enable him to proceed against Defendants in their official capacities. Thus, these claims are subject to dismissal.

Section 1983 claims against municipal officers in their official capacities are encompassed by a claim against the municipality.

Drake v. Saginaw Police Department · filed 2020-12-04

Defendants are correct that any claim against the individual officers in their official capacity is encompassed by the Monell claim, which can only be brought against the municipality. Therefore, to the extent that the Amended Complaint asserted claims against individual Defendant police officers in their official capacity, the claims will be dismissed.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim for injunctive relief when an alleged policy, practice or custom caused the constitutional violation.

Gill v. Doehling · filed 2020-12-17

Where a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, such claims are permissible under §1983. To state such claim, the plaintiff must allege that the entity’s policy, practice or custom resulted in the constitutional violation. ... The court will allow him to proceed on a claim against Doehling in her official capacity.

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

Grady v. Alonzo · filed 2020-12-21

As a result, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims must be dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim because: (1) there is no conduct by a “person” as required for a claim under Section 1983, and (2) the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages against state officials sued in their official capacity absent an express waiver of immunity by Congress or the state, neither of which is present under these circumstances.

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity suits against state officials despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

York v. Reavns · filed 2020-12-21

But the claims are unambiguously brought against them only in their individual capacity and “the Eleventh Amendment does not erect a barrier against suits to impose ‘individual and personal liability’ on state officials under § 1983.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30-31 (1991).

Section 1983 damages claims against Alabama sheriffs acting in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the sheriffs act as arms of the state.

Wilson v. Moultrie · filed 2020-12-28

Alabama sheriffs are deemed to be “arms of the State” when engaged in law enforcement activities and, consequently, are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity when sued in an official capacity under § 1983 for retrospective money damages.

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

Lopez v. Black · filed 2020-12-30

To the extent he seeks monetary relief against defendants, who are state employees, in their official capacities for violation of his constitutional rights, such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a public employee as a claim against the employing government entity.

Walton v. Myers · filed 2021-01-06

Also, because these four Defendants and Officer Penaherrara are sued only in their official capacities, any claims made against them are in effect being made against Douglas County.

Section 1983 claims seeking damages and declaratory relief may be construed against defendants in their individual capacities, and claims seeking injunctive relief in their official capacities.

BROWN v. SCHMIDT · filed 2021-01-06

For relief, Plaintiff seeks money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Therefore, the Court construes the claims as alleged against Defendants in their individual capacities (for damages and declaratory relief) and official capacities (for injunctive relief).

A § 1983 claim based on the two doctors’ alleged deliberate indifference is stated against them in their individual capacities.

Talley v. Hart · filed 2021-01-07

While Plaintiff says he is suing the Defendants in their official and individual capacities, the claim is articulated against the two doctors in their individual capacities only.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 is redundant when the plaintiff also sues the municipality.

Santucci v. Levine · filed 2021-01-08

As such, to the extent the fifth claim for relief is pressed against the Town and Hay in his official capacity, the latter portion of the claim is dismissed as redundant.

Section 1983 permits an official capacity claim against a prison official to implement injunctive relief.

Jones v. Wills · filed 2021-01-10

Because Jones requests injunctive relief, an official capacity claim is also added against Anthony Wills for the purpose of implementing any injunctive relief that Jones might be awarded.

Section 1983 treats official-capacity claims against county prosecutors as claims against the county.

Stevens v. Sullum · filed 2021-01-14

Additionally, insofar as Stevens raises his claims under §1983 against DA defendants in their official capacity, they are subject to dismissal with prejudice because these claims are viewed as claims against the County.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officers in their individual capacities; the court dismissed the official-capacity claims against these officers.

Thompson v. Hassett · filed 2021-01-15

The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants Hassett and Konieczny in their individual capacity (ECF No. 29) but does grant the Motion to Dismiss as to the suit in their official capacity as that designation is not proper under section 1983.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a sheriff may proceed when a factfinder could find that county policies violated a detainee’s constitutional right to medical care.

Lance v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2021-01-19

Finally, we conclude that the sheriff, Chris Morris, was not entitled to summary judgment in his official capacity because the factfinder could reasonably determine that the county’s policies had violated Mr. Lance’s constitutional right to medical care.

Section 1983 official capacity claims against city officials require allegations that a municipal policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.

POWELL v. CARNEY · filed 2021-01-19

To assert a plausible official capacity claim, therefore, a plaintiff must allege that the municipality had a policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violation. ... As Powell has failed to make any custom or policy allegation to support a claim against any Defendant in his or her official capacity, these claims must also be dismissed as not plausible.

Section 1983 claims against public officials in their official capacities impose liability on the government entities they represent.

Rivera-Guadalupe v. City of Harrisburg d/b/a Bureau of Police · filed 2021-01-20

Because “a judgment against a public servant ‘in his official capacity’ imposes liability on the entity that he represents,” the court will also dismiss the claims against Defendant Sprow and Pierce in their official capacities.

State officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Griffin v. Stirling · filed 2021-01-20

Consequently, inasmuch as Bryant, Bowman, and Robinson, are not “persons” when acting in their official capacities, they cannot be sued in their official capacities under Section 1983.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a municipal officer is treated as a claim against the municipality.

Johnson v. Erickson · filed 2021-01-20

Johnson’s official capacity claims against Weets, Doe, Fishbaugher and Erickson are the equivalent to claims against the City of Brookings.

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

Counts v. Robinson · filed 2021-01-22

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Counts’ claims for money damages against all the defendants in their official capacity is well taken because “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). [Dkt. No. 43 at 7].

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a municipal officer is duplicative when the municipality is also sued on the same constitutional claim.

Quintana v. City and County of Denver · filed 2021-01-22

Because Plaintiff has named Denver in each of the constitutional claims brought against the Individual Defendants under § 1983 (see ¶¶ 150–82), these official capacity claims are duplicative of Plaintiff’s claims against Denver and must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state actors in their official capacities.

DORVAL v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, TREASURY DEPARTMENT · filed 2021-01-25

Mr. Dorval asserts § 1983 and NJCRA claims against Detective Furda in his official capacity as well as his individual capacity. However, such suits for damages are not permitted against state actors in their official capacities. ... As a result, to the extent Counts 5 and 6 are asserted against Detective Furda in his official capacity, they are dismissed.

Section 1983 provides no cause of action for denial of a religious immunization exemption when the objection is scientific rather than religious and no free exercise right is infringed.

Mason v. General Brown Central School District · filed 1988-06-24

Consequently, not only did the Masons lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the exemption, they also had no cause of action under § 1983 because the actions of the school authorities in denying them an exemption, while possibly infringing on their unprotected scientific beliefs, could not have infringed on sincere religious beliefs opposed to immunization.

Section 1983 free exercise claims require proof that a substantial burden on religious exercise was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.

EL v. Evans · filed 2010-02-16

Instead, the Court reads the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Nelson as applying RLUIPA’s heightened burden of proof — requiring a defendant to show that the imposition of the substantial burden upon a plaintiff was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest — to Section 1983 free exercise claims.

Section 1983 damages are never incidental monetary relief in a New York CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Forth v. McGuire · filed 1998-10-02

The cause of action for monetary damages for violation of 42 USC § 1983 was properly dismissed because monetary relief is only available in a CPLR article 78 proceeding when it is incidental to the primary relief sought (see, CPLR 7806), and section 1983 damages are never incidental (see, Matter of Barresi v Mahoney, 240 AD2d 570, 571, lv denied 90 NY2d 812; see also, Davidson v Capuano, 792 F2d 275, 278-279).

Section 1983 violations are ordinarily treated as torts, and a declaratory judgment proceeding is improper to establish liability for them.

Thomas, Dan v. Sgt. Cogburn, Dr. Anderson and Nurse Wakeman · filed 1998-10-02

As Section 1983 violations are ordinarily considered torts, appellant's declaratory judgment was an improper proceeding to establish such liability.

Indiana’s 180-day tort-claim notice requirement applies as a procedural precondition to § 1983 actions filed in Indiana state court.

Indiana Department of Public Welfare v. Clark · filed 1985-05-30

Because it is a procedural precondition to sue, it overrides the procedural framework of § 1983 when the litigant chooses a state court forum. ... Despite the holding in Bel! we find the 180 day notice of claim provision applies to § 1983 actions brought in state court.

A state tort-claims act's special service requirement does not govern a Section 1983 claim when ordinary state civil procedure provides valid service on the municipality and the legislature did not clearly extend the special rule to federal civil-rights claims.

Mellinger v. Town of West Springfield · filed 1987-11-23

Chapter 258 addresses itself to State governmental liability ... for torts, not for constitutional deprivations. In the absence of a clear legislative statement that § 1983 claimants must comply with c. 258’s service of process procedure, this court will not impute such a requirement.

A § 1983 plaintiff filing in Indiana state court must comply with the Indiana Tort Claims Act’s procedural requirements.

City of Gary v. Kellogg · filed 1988-02-17

When a litigant chooses a state court forum, the procedural framework of the Act overrides those of § 1983.

Section 1983 provides no greater relief in state court than a plaintiff could obtain in federal court.

Truesdale v. University of North Carolina · filed 1988-09-06

We do not believe that plaintiff is entitled to any greater relief in a section 1983 action brought in the state courts than she could obtain in federal court.