42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Farmer v. Ramsay · filed 2002-08-05

However, the medical school accurately points out that § 1983 is the exclusive remedy for violations of § 1981 by state actors. ... Accordingly, Farmer has no cause of action based on § 1981 independent of § 1983.

Section 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for enforcing § 1981 rights against a state actor, so a § 1981 claim merges into the § 1983 claim.

Collier v. Clayton County Community Service Board · filed 2002-09-30

Accordingly, plaintiffs § 1981 claim merges into the § 1983 claim and the latter is the operative claim for purposes of this action.

Section 1983 affords a remedy for a class-of-one equal protection claim on appropriate proof.

C&H Company v. Richardson · filed 2003-10-27

That § 1983 affords such a remedy on appropriate proof is clear — the action brought in Olech was itself a claim pursu- ant to § 1983, see Olech v. Village of Willowbrook, 1998 WL 196455 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (district court opinion).

Section 1983 provides the exclusive federal damages remedy against a state actor for a violation of Section 1981 rights.

Bolden v. City of Topeka · filed 2004-05-25

It finds that Jett remains good law, and that Section 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for damages against a state actor for claims which arise under Section 1981.

Section 1983 equal protection claims use the McDonnell Douglas framework to evaluate disparate treatment.

Gurule v. San Juan County Government · filed 2005-02-28

An equal protection claim brought under § 1983 is evaluated under the analytical framework that the Supreme Court of the United States set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

Section 1983 permits an equal protection claim when the plaintiff proves purposeful discrimination.

Zappan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole · filed 2005-10-26

To bring a successful claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a denial of equal protection, a plaintiff must prove the existence of purposeful discrimination.

Section 1983 permits sufficiently specific class-of-one equal protection claims in employment disputes.

Benjamin v. Schuller · filed 2005-12-01

Since Underfer, however, the Sixth Circuit recognizes Section 1983 “class of one” claims as long as they are sufficiently specific.

Section 1983 provides the exclusive remedy against a state actor for a violation of rights secured by § 1981.

Dockery v. Unified School District No. 231 · filed 2006-01-03

Here, then, § 1981 creates the statutory right for Mr. Dockery’s discriminatory discharge claim and § 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for the alleged violation of his statutory right.

Section 1983 is the exclusive remedy against state actors for violations of Section 1981 rights, subject to a two-year limitations period in Delaware.

Parker v. Gadow · filed 2006-02-24

Accordingly, the only remedy available to Parker was under § 1983. That statute provides for a two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, we hold that the Superior Court correctly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Parker’s complaint as time-barred.

Section 1983 is the required vehicle for a § 1981 racial discrimination claim against a municipal employee in his individual capacity.

Knox v. City of Monroe · filed 2008-03-12

Based on Fifth Circuit persuasive and precedential authority, Knox can only assert a § 1981 claim for racial discrimination against Hopkins in his individual capacity through a § 1983 action.

Section 1983 provides the required cause of action for a federal constitutional or statutory claim against a state actor.

Zimmerman v. Wolff · filed 2008-12-18

However, to bring a federal constitutional or statutory claim against a state actor, a plaintiff must bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a cause of action for deprivation of equal protection under color of state law.

Whitfield v. Minter · filed 1973-12-26

The Court holds, therefore, that plaintiffs’ claim of deprivation of equal protection falls squarely within the jurisdictional provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).

Section 1983 is the exclusive federal remedy for § 1981 claims against state actors, but a failure to plead it did not bar the claim when the defendant did not raise the defect and the plaintiff argued the claim under § 1983.

Dunklin v. Montgomery County Board of Education · filed 2009-08-24

Because the Board did not raise the issue on summary judgment, however, and because Dunklin presented his arguments against summary judgment as if he brought his claims under § 1983 (see PL’s Resp. 12), the claim will not be barred for this reason.

Section 1983 is the required means of bringing a § 1981 claim against a state actor.

Y. Daniels v. Jefferson County Sheriff's · filed 2009-10-26

Claims against state actors for violations of § 1981 must be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Washington v. School Board of Hillsborough County · filed 2010-08-03

Claims against state actors, such as Defendant, for violations of Section 1981 must be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides the exclusive federal cause of action against state actors for violations of rights protected by § 1981.

Ortiz v. City of New York · filed 2010-12-13

I conclude that § 1983 provides the exclusive ... cause of action for § 1981 claims against state actors.

Section 1983 provides the exclusive remedy against state actors for violations of rights protected by Section 1981.

Bush v. Houston County Commission · filed 2011-02-15

Notably, § 1983 provides the exclusive remedy against state actors for violations of the rights contained in § 1981.

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

Smiley v. Alabama Department of Transportation · filed 2011-03-30

Consequently, when state actors violate a person’s rights declared in § 1981, that person may only seek a remedy by bringing suit pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a property owner to bring an equal protection claim based on unequal treatment in the zoning process.

City National Bank of Florida v. City of Tampa · filed 2011-04-06

Here, the property owners alleged that their proposed project was singled out and treated differently from other similarly situated properties with no rational basis offered by the City, thereby violating their equal protection rights. Such a claim is cognizable under section 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for claims against state actors alleging deprivation of rights protected by Section 1981.

Zeitoun v. City of New Orleans · filed 2011-12-07

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and not § 1981 is the proper vehicle to state a cause of action for the deprivation of civil rights claims.

Section 1983 is the exclusive vehicle for bringing Section 1981 discrimination claims against a state actor.

Moore v. Hale · filed 2012-03-19

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides the exclusive vehicle for the Plaintiffs to bring their claims that a state actor, Hale, discriminated against them in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Section 1983 provides the exclusive federal damages remedy for violations of Section 1981 rights asserted against a state actor.

Gill v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-07-03

The Supreme Court has held, however, that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) provides the “exclusive federal damages remedy for the violation of the rights guaranteed by [Section] 1981 when the claim is pressed against a state actor.” Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 735 (1989). Because the plaintiff has not alleged any claims under Section 1983, the court will regard the plaintiff’s claims as arising under only Title VII and the ADEA.

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

the City of El Paso, Texas v. Marquez · filed 2012-09-25

Because claims alleging Section 1981 violations against state actors must be brought under Section 1983, we conclude that the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Appellee’s Section 1981 claims.

Section 1983 requires an equal protection plaintiff to show purposeful discrimination and different treatment from similarly situated people.

Cypher v. California University of Pennsylvania · filed 2012-11-15

To bring a successful claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a denial of equal protection, Plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of purposeful discrimination and that he was treated differently than others similarly situated to him.

Section 1983 provides a remedy against state actors for violations of rights secured by Section 1981.

Bowyer v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-12-20

Therefore, although the plaintiffs have no right of action against the defendants under § 1981 directly, they are permitted to sue the defendants under § 1983 to remedy the alleged deprivation of the rights secured by § 1981.

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

Onyeanusi v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-09-24

Accordingly, because “the defendant here is not a private actor but the District of Columbia,” plaintiff’s claim that his rights under Section 1981 were violated “can be remedied exclusively through the cause of action for damages created by [Section] 1983.”

Section 1983 provides the federal damages remedy for a section 1981 claim against a state actor, but the complaint need not cite section 1983 expressly if its factual allegations state a claim.

Brown v. Sessoms · filed 2014-12-19

We believe Johnson controls our resolution of Brown’s section 1981 claim. The fact that Brown presses a statutory claim, whereas the Johnson plaintiffs raised a constitutional claim, does not appear to us to affect its applicability. Johnson makes clear that once those plaintiffs stated the facts allegedly giving rise to liability, they were not obligated to “invoke section 1983 expressly in order to state a claim.” Id. Because Brown’s section 1981 claim remains viable, we turn to the merits of that claim.

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

Reginald D. Marable, Sr. v. Marion Military Institute · filed 2014-12-22

Claims against state actors under § 1981 must be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... As Marable filed suit under both § 1981 and § 1983, his § 1981 claim against MMI was properly brought.

Section 1983 provides the remedy for Section 1981 violations committed by state actors.

Grady v. Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University · filed 2015-01-16

Although the Administration Defendants are correct that recovery under Section 1981 is available only pursuant to the general procedural mechanism created by Section 1983, the Complaint states explicitly that Counts III and IV are “brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Am. Compl. at 31-32, ECF No. 6). That is sufficient under federal pleading standards to survive a motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 permits an equal protection claim when defendants act with intent or purpose to discriminate against a person based on protected-class membership.

Norsworthy v. Beard · filed 2015-03-31

To state an equal protection claim under § 1983, Norsworthy must allege that “the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against [her] based upon membership in a protected class.”

Section 1983 provides the cause of action for Fourteenth Amendment claims against state actors; a plaintiff cannot bring those claims directly under the Constitution.

Love v. Mike Herron, Daryl Kent, Jerry Jones, and Pen Products Correctional Industries (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-10-28

Likewise, a plaintiff alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment must bring suit under Section 1983; no direct cause of action exists.

Section 1983 provides the cause of action for Section 1981 claims against state actors.

Smith v. Vestavia Hills Board of Education · filed 2016-11-01

Neither party addresses the issue of whether a state actor can be sued under Section 1981. It cannot. As the Eleventh Circuit has noted, “Section 1981 does not provide a cause of action against state actors; instead, claims against state actors or allegations of § 1981 violations must be brought pursuant to [42 U.S.C.] § 1983.” ... The Section 1981 claims in Counts One and Three will be dismissed. The Plaintiff will be given leave to amend to plead those claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, if she so chooses.

Section 1983 does not permit an official-capacity claim against a state actor because the claim is treated as one against the State.

Greenfield v. Budget of Delaware, Inc · filed 2017-02-22

Second, DFS Defendants cannot be sued in their official capacities because “[a] Section 1983 claim against a government actor in [his or] her official capacity is considered an action against the State, and it is well-settled that the State is not a proper defendant in a Section 1983 action.”

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

Sampson v. City of Fort Smith · filed 2017-06-08

A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the sole remedial provision for an action "brought against state actors alleging violation of the rights declared in § 1981.”

Section 1983 provides the exclusive federal remedy for violations of § 1981 rights by state government units.

Ghiles v. City of Chicago Heights · filed 2018-03-19

Instead, § 1983 provides the exclusive federal remedy for a violation of the rights guaranteed by § 1981 by state government units.

Section 1983 is the sole cause of action against state actors for violations of § 1981, and a claim against a municipality requires an alleged policy or custom of misconduct.

Duplan v. City of New York · filed 2018-04-30

With respect to his § 1981 claims, we conclude that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides the sole cause of action against state actors alleged to have violated § 1981. Construing Duplan’s claims as § 1983 claims, he has failed to allege a policy or custom of misconduct, as is necessary to assert liability against a municipality.

Section 1983 is the required remedy for a § 1981 claim against a state actor in her official capacity.

Isbell v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-05-25

Defendants are generally correct and, to the extent that Plaintiffs' § 1981 claim is made against Defendant Le Goff in her official capacity, Plaintiffs' claim must be brought under § 1983.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harris v. White · filed 1979-11-02

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

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

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

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

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

Foster v. McCabe · filed 2019-11-26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holliday v. Wolff · filed 2020-04-13

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

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

Hess v. Penzone · filed 2020-05-01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Escamilla v. Elliott · filed 2020-06-04

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downs v. Thompson · filed 2020-08-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moore v. Illinois · filed 2020-10-15

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

Section 1983 governs constitutional claims against state actors.

Quarles v. Thole · filed 2020-11-10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lall v. City of New York · filed 2021-03-05

Because Defendants are all state actors, § 1983 supplies the exclusive remedy.

Section 1983 is the exclusive federal remedy for violations of § 1981 rights by state actors, so a § 1981 claim against a state actor must be brought through § 1983.

Chames v. Calhoun County Commission · filed 2021-04-14

Here, Lt. Chames does not plead her § 1981 claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Accordingly, because the County is a state actor, see Lockridge, 460 So. 2d at 1363, her § 1981 claims are due to be dismissed.

Section 1983 provides the federal damages remedy for § 1981 claims against state actors, and a court may construe those claims under § 1983 even when the complaint does not cite it.

Castellano, III v. Betts · filed 2021-06-07

But despite Castellano’s deficient pleadings, the Court construes Castellano’s claims under § 1981 as § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 provides the remedy for a state actor’s violation of rights protected by section 1981.

Winston v. Dart · filed 2021-06-24

But the remedy for a violation of section 1981 by a state actor is provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 is the means of bringing a § 1981 claim against a state actor; the § 1981 claim merges into the § 1983 claim.

WRIGHT v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH · filed 2021-08-11

Accordingly, the claims against Stone, a state actor, are merged under the § 1983 claim.

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

Winston v. Dart · filed 2021-08-17

But the remedy for a violation of section 1981 by a state actor is provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits claims against state actors to enforce rights that cannot be pursued through a direct section 1981 claim.

Zhou v. Roswell Park Cancer Institute Corporation · filed 2021-09-21

Claims against state actors are appropriately brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Therefore, Dr. Zhou’s section 1983 claims, which appear to duplicate and alternatively plead her section 1981 claims, may proceed.

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

Hart v. Walmart · filed 2021-11-17

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

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

Cockrell v. Pickens County Commission · filed 2021-12-22

Although a plaintiff may bring an action for pay discrimination, “§ 1981 does not provide an implicit cause of action against state actors; therefore § 1983 constitutes the exclusive federal remedy for violation[s] by state actors of the rights guaranteed under § 1981.” See Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1288 (11th Cir. 2009). ... Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is due to be denied as to Plaintiff’s claim of discrimination under § 1981 and § 1983.

Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for retaliation claims against a municipality and state actors.

Tenemille v. Town Of Ramapo · filed 2022-01-13

Putting aside Plaintiff’s apparent concession of this point, the Court concludes that its prior decision was correct and that these claims are properly brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against state actors who violate federally protected rights.

BAUGHNS v. WILLIAMS · filed 2022-02-08

Because there are no federal actors involved in this case, Plaintiff’s claims are more properly construed as seeking relief pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for violations of § 1981 by state actors.

Fields v. Southern Union State Community College (CONSENT) · filed 2022-02-09

Section 1983, which provides a private cause of action against a state actor who violates federal constitutional or statutory rights, provides the exclusive remedy for a violation of § 1981 by a state actor.

A § 1981 claim against state actors may be construed as a § 1983 claim even if the complaint does not cite § 1983.

Patton v. Rhee · filed 2022-03-23

Although Plaintiff does not cite 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in his complaint, the Court will construe his § 1981 claim (Count II) as having been brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for a violation of Section 1981 by a state actor.

Grant v. Elmore County Board of Education (CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-30

Section 1983, which provides a private cause of action against a state actor who violates federal constitutional or statutory rights, provides the exclusive remedy for a violation of § 1981 by a state actor.

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

Gaines v. Baltimore City, Maryland · filed 2022-05-09

Defendant is correct that plaintiff’s claim is properly brought under § 1983, not § 1981.

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

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

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

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

Miller v. Depuy · filed 1969-10-01

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

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

Posner v. New York · filed 1972-03-31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jafree v. Scott · filed 1974-02-20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blount v. Mandel · filed 1975-08-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goff v. Jones · filed 1977-05-20

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

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

Sims v. Tinney · filed 1977-09-16

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

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

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

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

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

Williams v. Greco · filed 1977-12-20

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

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

Gillard v. Schmidt · filed 1978-07-03

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

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

Kanarek v. Davidson · filed 1978-09-07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hodges v. Tomberlin · filed 1981-03-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Satterfield v. Clark · filed 1981-05-29

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

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

Griffin v. Pate · filed 1981-11-27

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

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

Crow v. Gullet · filed 1982-06-25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not enough to bring section 1983 into play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flowers v. Coughlin · filed 1982-11-22

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

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

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

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

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

Scot v. Merola · filed 1983-01-13

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

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

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

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

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

Schreiber v. Jeter · filed 1982-05-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephenson v. Esquivel · filed 1985-07-30

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

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

Metcalf v. Long · filed 1985-08-14

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

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

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

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

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

Holland v. Breen · filed 1985-10-30

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

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

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

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

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

Buranen v. Hanna · filed 1985-12-05

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

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

Brannum v. Wilson · filed 1985-12-05

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brekke v. Volcker · filed 1987-02-03

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

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

Lombardo v. Oppenheimer · filed 1987-02-23

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

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

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

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

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

Medina v. Delgado · filed 1987-04-13

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

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

Blake v. Lang · filed 1987-05-08

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wright v. Young · filed 1987-08-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haddad v. Wall · filed 2000-08-08

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

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

Doe v. McConn · filed 1980-04-03

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

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

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

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