42 U.S.C. § 1983

A state prosecutor's threat can turn a private company's otherwise private conduct into state action for § 1983 purposes.

Carlin Communications, Inc. v. The Mountain States Telephone And Telegraph Company · filed 1987-12-07

With this threat, Arizona “exercised coercive power” over Mountain Bell and thereby converted its otherwise private conduct into state action for purposes of Sec. 1983.

A § 1983 claim that a defendant acted under color of state law by conspiring with state actors fails when the conspiracy claim is unsupported.

Godwin v. State of Virginia Child Support Enforcement Division · filed 2003-03-13

Further, as to Plaintiffs’ claim on appeal that Defendant Canella should be considered a state actor because he conspired with state actors, their claim is unsupported and thus must fail.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim against a sheriff based on a plausibly alleged jail practice that causes constitutional harm, but not on respondeat superior alone.

Wilson v. Cook County Jail · filed 2020-09-22

Although Wilson cannot hold Dart liable in his official capacity based on respondeat superior, Rossi v. City of Chicago, 790 F.3d 729, 737 (7th Cir. 2015), Dart may be held liable under § 1983 for deliberate indifference pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). ... But even setting aside the 2008 DOJ report, the Court finds that Wilson has sufficiently alleged a Monell claim.

A local government may be liable for a judgment against an official sued in an official capacity, even if the government was not formally a party, when it received adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.

Barrett v. Thomas · filed 1987-03-10

The Supreme Court has recently held, however, that in suits against local officials, local governments may themselves be made liable to the plaintiffs even when they are not formally parties in the suit, as long as the suits are made against the officials in their official capacities, and as long as the public entities received adequate notice and an opportunity to respond. ... The district court's judgment holding the County jointly liable for the back-pay award is therefore affirmed.

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

Frederick v. Abramajtys · filed 1995-09-21

In their official capacity, defendants are not "persons" subject to suit for money damages under Sec. 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities, and a complaint that does not specify capacity is treated as an official-capacity suit.

Adams v. Constance M. Upper, Hearing Officer Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director Margarette T. Ghee, Parole Board Ch · filed 1995-09-27

Initially, we note that because Adams failed to allege in his complaint in what capacity he was suing the defendants, they are considered as being sued in their official capacities. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 593 (6th Cir.1989). Therefore, the defendants are not subject to suit for monetary damages under Sec. 1983.

In a § 1983 official-capacity suit, backpay and attorney fees sought from an officer are treated as relief against the governmental entity that would pay them.

Mumford v. Zieba · filed 1995-09-28

Mumford is also seeking backpay and attorneys fees against Judge Basinski in his official capacity. Such relief is really aimed at the County because the County is the true entity which will pay for this type of award.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against state officials sued in their official capacities because they assume the identity of the government that employs them.

Hendren v. Seal · filed 1995-10-20

Furthermore, state officials sued in their official capacity are not liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they assume the identity of the government that employs them.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials in their official capacities where the state has not consented to suit.

Joyner v. Barbieri, No. 37 46 26 (Nov. 16, 1995) · filed 1995-11-16

The United States Supreme Court has held "that a state or state official while acting in his official capacity is not a `person' within the meaning of § 1983." ... Thus, state officials may not be sued in their official capacities unless the state consents to be sued.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief.

Johnson v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 1995-12-01

A plaintiff may only maintain a § 1983 suit against official capacity state officials for prospective, injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity suits against state officials for declaratory or injunctive relief, but not for damages.

Pruitt v. Hess · filed 1996-02-08

While a state official sued in his or her official capacity may be a “person” for purposes of suit under § 1983, this is true only if declaratory or injunctive relief is requested. If damages are requested, such request amounts to a suit against the state itself, and such suit cannot be maintained under § 1983.

An officer sued only in an official capacity may be dismissed from a Section 1983 action when the represented public entity is also a defendant.

Callis v. Sellars · filed 1996-02-27

Since Nuchia has been sued only in his official capacity, and the public entity which he allegedly represents (i.e., the City of Houston) has been joined as a defendant, there is no reason why Nuchia should continue to be a defendant in this action.

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

Phelan v. Thompson · filed 1996-03-12

Such suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, though brought against named individuals are in reality suits against the municipality.

Section 1983 does not treat police officers sued in their official capacities as persons subject to money damages.

McAdams v. The University of Cincinnati, Department of Public Safety Police Division Rhonda Herbert Timothy Crawfo · filed 1996-03-15

First, the defendant police officers are not "persons" subject to suit for money damages under § 1983 insofar as they are sued in their official capacities.

State employees sued in their official capacities are not persons subject to monetary damages under § 1983; a complaint that does not specify individual capacity is treated as an official-capacity suit.

Pearly L. Wilson v. Janice Lane, Warden Ronald E. Forrest, Deputy Warden · filed 1996-04-17

The defendants were presumptively sued in their official capacity as state employees because the complaint does not indicate that they were being sued as individuals. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 592-93 (6th Cir.1989). In that capacity, the defendants are not "persons" who are subject to suit for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Wells, 891 F.2d at 594.

A state official sued in an official capacity is not a person under § 1983 and is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Hatcher v. Evans · filed 1996-04-18

A state official acting in his official capacity is not a person within the meaning of § 1983 and is immune from suit by operation of the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not allow damages suits against state officials in their official capacities because the state is not a person subject to suit under the section.

McMurry v. Sheahan · filed 1996-05-15

Pucinski cannot be held liable in her official capacity under section 1983 because the state is not a “person” to whom section 1983 was meant to apply and therefore cannot be sued.

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

Tate-Bey v. Joseph McCarroll Gary M. Gabry and Michigan Parole Board · filed 1996-05-17

To the extent that Tate-Bey sought monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacity, this claim fails because they are not subject to suit for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Lyle v. Koole · filed 1996-06-10

Initially, we note that because Lyle failed to allege in his complaint in what capacity he was suing the defendant, Koole is considered as being sued in his official capacity. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 593 (6th Cir.1989). Therefore, defendant Koole is not subject to suit for monetary damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 excludes damages claims against state officials in their official capacities but permits official-capacity suits for prospective injunctive relief.

Thomas v. Brown · filed 1996-06-13

As to the first element, when sued for damages, officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” who may be liable under Section 1983. ... However, when sued for injunc-tive relief, officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide monetary relief against state prison officials sued only in their official capacities.

McManaway v. Sapienza · filed 1996-06-18

Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion because McManaway only sued the defendants in their official capacities for which monetary relief is not available.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal officers are redundant when the municipality is also named as a defendant on the same claims.

Gay v. City of Daleville · filed 1996-07-17

Given that the plaintiff has named the City of Daleville as a defendant in this action and has raised § 1983 claims against it, his claims for § 1983 relief as to the individual defendants in their official capacities are redundant.

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

Hunter v. Supreme Court of New Jersey · filed 1996-08-27

Because the plaintiff asserts claims for damages against the defendants in their official capacities, he has failed to state a claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 treats state defendants whose sued capacity is unspecified as official-capacity defendants, barring monetary damages while permitting injunctive and declaratory relief.

Mullins v. Rex Zent, Warden · filed 1996-10-09

A state and its officials are not considered persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when sued in their official capacities for monetary damages. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). If a plaintiff does not affirmatively plead the capacity in which he is suing state defendants, they will be considered as sued in their official capacities, and thus not be considered subject to suit for monetary damages. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 593-94 (6th Cir.1989). Nonetheless, such state defendants can be sued in their official capacities for injunctive and declaratory relief. See Will, 491 U.S. at 71 n. 10. Therefore, the appeal may proceed as it relates to these claims for relief.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer as a claim against the municipality, making it redundant to name both.

Davoll v. Webb · filed 1996-10-10

I conclude the individual Defendants are sued in their official capacity only and naming both them and the municipality in a § 1983 action is redundant.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a state official sued in an official capacity, and a complaint that does not specify capacity is treated as an official-capacity suit.

Harris v. Muchnicki · filed 1996-11-14

Moreover, it is well-settled that a state official sued in his official capacity may not be sued for monetary damages under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). If a plaintiff does not affirmatively plead the capacity in which he is suing a state defendant, the defendant will be considered as sued in his official capacity, and thus not subject to suit for monetary damages.

Under § 1983, a suit against state university police officers in their official capacities is treated as a suit against the university’s Board of Trustees, which is immune from suit in federal court.

Williams v. University of Illinois · filed 1996-11-15

A suit against an individual in his official capacity is a suit against the entity of which he is an agent. ... The entity of which the named officers are agents is, of course, the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. And, as noted above, the Board of Trustees is immune from suit in federal court.

State officials sued in their official capacities are not persons under Section 1983 for monetary damages.

Mullins v. Cranston · filed 1996-12-05

State officials are not considered persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when sued in their official capacities for monetary damages.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against a state official sued in an official capacity; a suit that does not specify capacity is treated as an official-capacity suit.

Archie Sharp, Jr. v. Ray · filed 1996-12-13

Absent a specification of capacity, a state official will be construed to be sued in his official capacity. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 593 (6th Cir.1989). A state official is not subject to suit for monetary damages in his official capacity. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). Therefore, the defendant is not subject to suit for monetary damages.

A § 1983 damages complaint against a state official must clearly say the official is sued in an individual capacity; otherwise the suit is treated as an official capacity suit.

Harvest v. John Randolph, and State of Tennessee, Department of Transportation · filed 1996-12-18

Under the settled law of this Circuit, where a complaint seeking monetary damages against a state official under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not clearly state that the official is sued in his individual or personal capacity, the court must treat the lawsuit as one against the defendant in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not treat state officials sued in their official capacities for money damages as persons, so they are immune from those claims.

Gholson v. Murry · filed 1997-01-07

To the extent that plaintiffs are suing defendants in their official capacities for money damages in this Complaint, defendants are immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, because state officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

An official-capacity § 1983 suit against a public official is treated as a suit against the governmental entity the official represents.

Simpson v. Michael Sheahan, Sheriff of Cook County, Cross-Appellee · filed 1997-01-17

A suit against an individual acting in his official capacity is effectively a suit against "the polity for which he is an official."

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

Hughes v. Terry Collins Maria Walters J. Goodman · filed 1997-02-20

Because Hughes did not specify the capacity in which the defendants were being sued, we regard them as having been sued in their official capacities. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 592 (6th Cir.1989). Accordingly, the defendants are not subject to suit for monetary damages under § 1983.

A state official sued in her official capacity for prospective relief is a person who may be sued under § 1983.

Bock Associates v. Chronister · filed 1997-02-25

She is being sued in her official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. In such capacity, she is a “person” for purposes of § 1983 when she is sued for prospective relief.

In a § 1983 suit against a local government, the entity is the proper defendant; an officer sued only in an official capacity may be dismissed when both are named.

Luke v. Abbott · filed 1997-03-05

If both are named, it is proper upon request for the Court to dismiss the official-capacity officer, leaving the local government entity as the correct defendant.

Section 1983 bars damages claims against state officials in their official capacities because those claims are treated as suits against the state.

Davie v. Wingard · filed 1997-03-06

Any § 1983 claims for monetary relief against Defendants in their official capacities are barred, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment for these claims.

State officials sued for money damages in their official capacities are not persons under § 1983 and are immune from suit.

Alley v. Angelone · filed 1997-04-10

To the extent that plaintiffs are suing defendants in their official capacities for money damages in this Complaint, defendants are immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, because state officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim for prospective injunctive relief against territorial officials, but does not permit damages against them in their official capacities.

Everett v. Schneider · filed 1997-04-24

Because in this ease, the Plaintiffs sued territorial officials only in their official capacities the claim for injunctive relief may be maintained under section 1983, but damages are not available.

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

Gustafson v. Jones · filed 1997-06-27

The plaintiffs’ suit against the three defendants in their official capacities must be analyzed as a suit against the City of Milwaukee itself, even though the plaintiffs never attempted to sue the City nor did the defendants seek any substitution of parties.

Section 1983 permits prospective relief against state officials sued in their official capacities because they are persons for that purpose.

Murphy v. State of Arkansas · filed 1997-10-15

State officials acting in their official capacities are § 1983 "persons" when sued for prospective relief, and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar such relief.

A § 1983 official-capacity claim against a municipal officer requires a municipal custom or policy that caused the violation of rights.

Decker v. Campus · filed 1997-11-07

Additionally, we grant summary judgment to defendant on the issue of official liability, because plaintiff has not stated a custom or policy of Dutchess County which resulted in violation of his rights.

Section 1983 allows prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities but does not allow damages against them in that capacity.

Wasson v. Sonoma County Junior College District · filed 1997-12-05

A state official is not a person for purposes of § 1983 and may not be sued under § 1983 in his official capacity for damages, although he may be sued for injunctive relief.

Section 1983 claims cannot be brought against a state agency or a state official acting in an official capacity.

Dollar v. Olmstead · filed 1998-05-11

“Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58 (109 SC 2304, 105 LE2d 45) (1989) holds that § 1983 claims cannot be asserted against a state agency or state officials acting in their official capacity.” ... Summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 permits monetary damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities without an Eleventh Amendment bar.

Turker v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections · filed 1998-10-05

A plaintiff however, may sue state officials for monetary damages in their individual capacities under § 1983 without running afoul of the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer as a claim against the municipality, so duplicate claims against both are redundant.

Kinsey v. City of Opp, Ala. · filed 1999-05-19

When an officer is sued under § 1983 in his official capacity, the suit is simply “another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” ... Thus, the court finds that Counts V and VI against Defendant Kyser in his official capacity are due to be dismissed, as Plaintiffs have also brought these claims against the City of Opp.

A § 1983 plaintiff must expressly and unambiguously plead that a public official is sued in an individual capacity; otherwise, the official is treated as sued only in an official capacity.

Palmer v. Bains · filed 1999-07-06

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we agree with the district court that plaintiffs did not state a claim against Bains and Hillman in their individual capacities. See Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999) (noting that “in order to sue a public official in his or her individual capacity, a plaintiff must expressly and unambiguously state so in the pleadings, otherwise, it will be assumed that the defendant is sued only in his or her official capacity”) (citations omitted).

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

Harris v. Curry, No. Cv 99 0088929 (Dec. 16, 1999) · filed 1999-12-16

Accordingly, with respect to counts eight and nine, to the extent that the plaintiff seeks to sue the defendants for damages in their official capacities under § 1983, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Section 1983 does not allow claims for money damages against state officials in their official capacities because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment or the officials are not “persons” under the section.

Cohen v. Nebraska, Department of Administrative Services, Division of Central Data Processing · filed 2000-02-08

I agree that Cohen’s section 1983 claims for money damages against Hattan, Gillespie, and Unverferth acting in their official capacities are barred, “either by the Eleventh Amendment or because in these capacities they are not ‘persons’ for § 1983 purposes.”

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities when the complaint and course of proceedings show that personal liability is sought.

State v. Nieto · filed 2000-02-14

Under our precedent and considering the complaint as a whole and the course of the proceedings, we hold that the plaintiff stated § 1983 claims against the individual defendants in their “personal” and “individual” capacities.

Section 1983 claims against officers sued only in their official capacities are evaluated under municipal liability standards and require proof of a constitutionally deficient municipal policy.

Hawks v. Jones · filed 2000-06-15

Because Defendants Jones, Reese and Schmidt-Robinson are sued here only in their official capacities and, as such, stand in the shoes of the municipality they represent, the Section 1983 claims against them must be evaluated under the foregoing standards of municipal liability. Therefore, to withstand summary judgment on the federal claims, at a minimum, Plaintiff must present proof of the existence of a constitutionally deficient City of Flint official policy. Plaintiff has not met this burden.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity suits against state officers for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

O'Hara v. Illinois Department of Mental Health · filed 2000-06-27

Mr. O’Hara can sue the individual officers in their official capacities, at least for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief, but he fails to make his case for a violation.

Section 1983 does not permit an official-capacity claim against a state corrections employee when the claim is effectively against the state.

Jordan v. Doe · filed 2001-02-15

Mr. Jordan consequently has no § 1983 claim against Mr. Wyle in his official capacity.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief, but sovereign immunity bars claims seeking other relief.

Patricia N. v. Lemahieu · filed 2001-05-29

The court agrees that because Plaintiffs do not appear to request prospective injunctive relief, the § 1983 claims against the individually named state Defendants in their official capacities must fail.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against state officials sued in their official capacities, but allows claims for injunctive relief against them.

Nanda v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois · filed 2001-08-21

The Supreme Court has held that a lawsuit under § 1983 against state officials constitutes a suit against the State itself, and that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983 for purposes of damage awards. ... Defendants are correct that, under this authority, Plaintiffs claim for damages against the individual Defendants must be dismissed. ... Defendants’ motion to dismiss individual damages claims in Count II is granted. Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief in this count will stand.

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

Hotaling v. LaPlante · filed 2001-08-21

It is well-settled that states and state officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” under Section 1983, and thus cannot be liable for deprivations of constitutional rights under the statute.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state prison officials in their official capacities because those claims are suits against the state.

Sanville, Martha v. McCaughtry, Gary · filed 2001-09-21

We conclude, therefore, that the official capacity claims seeking money damages from the defendants should have been dismissed on the basis that they may not be sustained under sec. 1983.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal officers are claims against the municipality and are duplicative when the municipality is also named as a defendant.

BGHA, LLC v. City of Universal City, Texas · filed 2002-01-24

Accordingly, plaintiffs claims against defendants Bryant and Becken in their official capacities are actually asserted against the City, which is already a named-defendant in this lawsuit. Consequently, such claims are duplicative and are hereby dismissed.

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

Mejia v. Blanchette · filed 2002-06-11

Although a civil rights action may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a “person” acting under color of state law, state officials sued in their official capacities have Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, and hence are not considered “person[s]” within the meaning of § 1983, see Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990); Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989).

Section 1983 claims against county officials in their official capacities require an allegation that a county policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.

Scott v. Curry · filed 2002-08-12

Scott’s claims against Carpenter and Curry in their official capacity fail because he has not alleged that an official policy or custom of Tarrant County resulted in the violation of his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 permits civil rights claims against state officials in their individual capacities for actions taken while performing official duties; those claims remain subject to limitations and collateral estoppel.

Simmons v. Gath Baptist Church · filed 2003-01-23

The only theory we can think of that would allow a claimant to sue a state official in his individual capacity for actions undertaken by the official while performing what appears to be his official duty is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But as we indicated above, any action based upon such a theory in this case is barred by collateral estoppel and by the statute of limitations.

District attorneys acting as state officers when deciding whether to prosecute are not persons subject to § 1983 liability in official-capacity damages suits.

Taylor v. Garcetti · filed 2003-02-12

Moreover, as state actors the defendants are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983 and therefore cannot be held liable under that statute.

Section 1983 does not permit an official-capacity suit against state officials seeking only retrospective payment for past conduct, rather than relief for a continuing violation of federal law.

Hebrew Hospital Home, Inc. v. Novello · filed 2003-03-18

The complaint failed to state a cause of action because the named defendants, who are State officials sued in their official capacity for their official conduct in recouping the funds at issue, are not subject to suit under 42 USC § 1983, the relief sought by the plaintiff, i.e., payment of money alleged to have been wrongfully recouped based on the past conduct of defendants, being exclusively retrospective and not directed at remedying any continuing violation of federal law (see Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58 [1989]; Kentucky v Graham, 473 US 159, 167 n 14 [1985]).

Section 1983 treats state officers sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief as persons who are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Thompson v. Eason · filed 2003-03-28

State officers sued for prospective injunctive relief in their official capacities, however, have been determined to be “persons” for purposes of a § 1983 suit and they are not entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities cannot proceed when the officials represent the State, because they are not persons under the statute.

Gean v. Hattaway · filed 2003-06-06

Even if Tennessee’s sovereign immunity has been properly waived or abrogated for the purposes of the federal statute the defendants allegedly violated, a § 1983 claim against the defendants in their official capacities cannot proceed because, by definition, those officials are not persons under the terms of § 1983.

A Section 1983 suit against a state official in an official capacity is a suit against the State.

Maximiliano Herrera, Richard Woodcroft, Loretta Tamm, Nina Vaughan and Sandra Moreno v. Spencer · filed 2003-10-16

A suit against an official in his official capacity is not a suit against the official, but is rather a suit against the State.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 against city officials is a claim against the city and requires an alleged city policy or custom.

Hayward v. Health Department & Department of Law · filed 2004-04-08

Hayward’s official-capacity claims against the City defendants thus amounted to claims against only the City, but Hayward did not assert that the City had... a policy or custom of improperly seeking, issuing, and executing administrative search warrants.

Section 1983 permits a damages action against a state official in an individual capacity for acts personally committed under color of state law.

Shockley v. Mary Spinner Jones and Terry McLain · filed 1987-06-26

But a suit for damages against a state official in his or her individual capacity — meaning that the plaintiff seeks to establish personal liability against the defendant for acts he or she personally committed under color of state law — is not a suit against the state, and thus the Eleventh Amendment is not an obstacle to recovery.

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity suits against state officials for acts taken under color of state law, even when those acts are official in nature.

Hafer v. Melo · filed 1991-11-05

We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under § 1983 solely by virtue of the “official” nature of their acts.

Section 1983 claims against county officials sued only in their official capacities are subject to the requirements for municipal liability under Monell.

Shelby County Jail Inmates v. Richard W. Westlake, Individually and as Sheriff of Shelby County · filed 1986-08-20

Because the plaintiffs sued the defendants solely in their official capacities as agents of the county, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on the requirements of Monell.

A § 1983 claim against a municipal officer in his official capacity requires a municipal policy or custom of unconstitutional conduct.

McInnis v. Town of Weston · filed 2005-06-28

Mclnnis has not alleged in his complaint, argued in his opposition brief, or adduced any evidence that the Town of Weston itself had a policy of age discrimination. Therefore his Section 1983 claim against Land in his official capacity must fail.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state officials in their official capacities.

Kelley v. DiPaola · filed 2005-07-13

Thus, the employee defendants are “state officials” and are not subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit an official-capacity claim for relief that would require a state to relinquish its interest in property; that relief is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The John G. And Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Garry Mauro, Commissioner of the General Land Office · filed 1994-06-29

Despite its contention that its § 1983 suit is only for declaratory and prospective in-junctive relief against Mauro in his' official capacity, the relief sought by the Foundation — no matter how its request for relief is phrased — would operate against the State. Hence, the State of Texas, not Mauro, is the real, substantial party in interest. We therefore conclude that the Foundation’s § 1983 claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the district court did not err in determining that the court did not have the power to entertain the claim.

Section 1983 treats a suit against a municipal officer in his official capacity as a suit against the municipality, subject to Monell’s municipal-liability requirements.

Kraemer v. Luttrell · filed 2006-04-27

Suing a municipal officer in his official capacity for a constitutional violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the same as suing the municipality itself, and thus a successful suit against a municipal officer in his official capacity must meet the requirements for municipal liability stated in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials sued in their official capacities, but not monetary relief.

Neiberger v. Hawkins · filed 1999-11-12

Therefore, I grant, as confessed, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim against the DHS, the CMHI-P, and the official capacity Defendants to the extent that monetary relief is requested. Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Toerber are appropriate Defendants in their official capacity under § 1983 for prospective, injunctive relief only.

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

Lowe v. Sockey · filed 2002-04-02

First , we agree with the district court that, to the extent Mr. Lowe seeks damages from Messrs. Sockey, Amos, and Ward in the official capacities of the respective defendants, the Eleventh Amendment indeed bars such a suit.

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

Medina-Claudio v. Pereira · filed 2006-07-19

However, as the “Eleventh Amendment does not erect a barrier against suits to impose ‘individual and personal liability’ on state officials under § 1983,” ... the action remains as to all defendants in their personal capacities.

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

ZBORALSKI v. Monahan · filed 2006-08-14

Second, the definition of § 1983 bars suits against state officials, when sued in their official capacity because the state (and therefore, an official sued as the state) is not a “person” under the definition of § 1983.

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

Almond v. Tarver · filed 2006-08-15

Therefore, a § 1983 suit seeking damages brought against a state official in his official capacity is foreclosed.

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity suits against state officials, and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar those suits.

Hanani v. NJ Dept Env Prot · filed 2006-11-09

State officials, sued in their individual capacities, are “persons” within the meaning of Section 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under Section 1983 solely by virtue of the “official” nature of their acts.

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

Scott v. Ozmint · filed 2006-12-14

Defendant Director Ozmint also argues, correctly, that the action against him should be dismissed as a matter of law to the extent he is being sued in his official capacity, because while acting in their official capacity he is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, therefore, they are not subject to suit.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state officer in her official capacity when the plaintiff seeks only retrospective relief.

Giaquinto v. Commissioner of New York State Department of Health · filed 2007-04-05

Because petitioner sought only retrospective relief against a state officer acting in her official capacity, he failed to prevail against respondent on a claim under 42 USC § 1983, and is therefore not entitled to an award of counsel fees against respondent under 42 USC § 1988 (compare Hebrew Hosp. Home v Novello, 303 AD2d 255, 255 [2003] [affirming dismissal of 42 USC § 1983 claim because payment of money allegedly wrongfully recouped constituted retrospective relief]; Matter of Gaines v New York State Div. for Youth, supra at 897 [request for back pay sought retrospective relief]).

A Florida county is a proper defendant in a § 1983 suit against its sheriff in his official capacity.

Seraphin Ex Rel. Estate of Seraphin v. Parapella · filed 2007-05-16

Significantly, Lucas is the only case that addressed the dismissal of a county defendant in a claim brought against a sheriff and a county pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... However, these recent cases provide additional support that Lucas should be followed, and no reading of these cases suggests that the county is not a proper party when a sheriff in Florida is sued in his or her official capacity. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that Broward County is a proper party to this lawsuit, not a nominal party.

Section 1983 permits claims against a municipal officer in his individual capacity.

Haber v. County of Nassau · filed 1976-04-01

In short, this Court has jurisdiction over the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against defendant Sehlmeyer in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 does not authorize suits against state officials in their official capacity.

Anderson v. Luther · filed 1981-03-11

Section 1983 does not authorize actions against state officials in their official capacity.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity suit against a state officer for prospective relief that ends an ongoing violation of federal law.

Giaquinto v. Commissioner of New York State Department of Health · filed 2008-06-12

In light of Young and its progeny, we agree with petitioner and hold that the relief petitioner sought was prospective in nature; accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar petitioner’s suit against respondent.

A Section 1983 suit against a state official in an official capacity is treated as a suit against the state itself.

King v. St of LA Dept of Pub · filed 2008-09-23

It is well-settled that a section 1981 or 1983 suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself; accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed the actions against all defendants sued in their official capacities.

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

Palmer v. Bartosh · filed 2008-10-23

Here, because the Palmers failed to plead the existence of a District policy or custom establishing a causal nexus between the District and the Defendants' conduct or that the Defendants are policymakers for the District, the Palmers failed to state a cause of action against the Defendants in their official capacities under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit retrospective relief against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Robinson v. Allstate · filed 2008-11-06

As such, state officials, such as the moving defendants, cannot be sued in their official capacities for retrospective relief under § 1983.

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

Carter v. Porter · filed 2008-11-12

Consequently, the court will dismiss the plaintiffs § 1983 claim regarding acts done by the defendants in their official capacities as members of the KSP.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against municipal officers may be dismissed as redundant when the plaintiff can obtain the same relief from the municipality.

Trafford v. City of Westbrook · filed 2009-03-06

In short, Plaintiff has failed to proffer any relief that can be granted to him on his official capacity claims that he cannot possibly obtain based on his Section 1983 claims against Westbrook. ... Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to dismiss the official capacity claims against Chu-luda and Littlefield as redundant.

Section 1983 permits prospective relief against a state official sued in an official capacity because the official is a person under the statute.

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Tristano · filed 1990-04-06

A state official sued for prospective relief in his or her official capacity is a person under § 1983. ... Therefore, the claims for prospective relief survive the motion to dismiss.

State officials sued in their individual capacities may be personally liable under § 1983 even when their acts were official in nature.

Jess White v. Ronald O. Gregory Michael House · filed 1993-08-23

Because White sued Defendants “as individuals,” dismissal under Will was inappropriate.

Section 1983 does not treat state officials sued in their official capacities as persons for claims that do not seek prospective relief.

Bryant-Bruce v. Vanderbilt University, Inc. · filed 1997-07-03

Additionally, in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that state officials sued in their official capacity are not “persons” under Section 1983 and, therefore, they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. ... However, as claims against state actors acting in their official capacities are barred, the claims filed against State and CSS Defendants ... in their official capacities should be dismissed.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officers sued in their personal capacities despite Eleventh Amendment protection for those officers in their official capacities.

Workman v. MINGO COUNTY SCHOOLS · filed 2009-11-03

Ms. Workman may pursue her claims for damages against the individual defendants only by suing them in their personal capacities.

Section 1983 claims may proceed against officials in their individual capacities when the complaint expressly indicates that capacity.

Bird Ex Rel. Bird v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department · filed 2010-01-28

Because the complaint expressly stated that Bird was suing Crews and Groat "Individually" and because Bird's opposition to Crews and Groat's summary judgment motion left no doubt that Bird intended to sue Crews and Groat in their individual capacities, it was error for the court to conclude that Bird sued Crews and Groat in their official capacities only.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their individual capacities and does not make them absolutely immune solely because their acts were official.

Slinger v. New Jersey · filed 2010-02-22

The Supreme Court held in Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991), that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits brought against state officials in their individual capacities, even if the actions which are the subject of the suit were part of their official duties: “We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are ‘persons’ within the meaning of § 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under § 1983 solely by virtue of the ‘official’ nature of their acts.” ... We conclude, accordingly, that the District Court erred in dismissing the claims brought by the Slingers against Ap-pellees in their individual capacities for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1983 claims against TDCJ officials in their official capacity are treated as suits against the state and barred by sovereign immunity.

Jim H. Hamilton, Jr. v. Pechacek · filed 2010-03-11

When sued under section 1983 in an official capacity, a suit against a TDCJ official is a suit against the State of Texas and is thus barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages claims against state officials in their official capacities because those claims are against the state.

Walthour v. CHILD AND YOUTH SERVICES · filed 2010-07-14

In other words, a claim against Judicial Defendants in their official capacity is simply a claim against the state, and a state cannot be sued under Section 1983 for money damages.

Section 1983 does not permit an official-capacity claim against a state official when the claim is treated as one against the state, which is not a person under the section.

Chestang v. ALCORN STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2011-05-17

For this reason, Chestang’s claims against Simpson in his official capacity are claims against the state of Mississippi which are not actionable under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities and injunctive relief against them in their official capacities.

B & B Target Center, Inc. v. Figueroa-Sancha · filed 2012-07-03

Defendants can be sued for damages in their individual capacity, however, and because the plaintiffs’ claim of a Fourteenth Amendment violation is moving forward, the defendants may still be liable. This logic is also applicable to the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, a remedy that can be awarded against state officials acting in their official capacity despite the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Santiago v. Keyes · filed 2012-08-21

To begin, Keyes is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiffs claims against him in his official capacity brought under sections 1983 and 1985. ... Accordingly, the Court held that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for money damages against a state official sued in her official capacity because the official is not a “person” subject to liability under the section.

PG Publishing Co. v. Aichele · filed 2012-10-09

Even in the absence of a jurisdictional defect, the claims for money damages would nevertheless fail for the independent reason that the Secretary, when sued in her official capacity, is not a “person” subject to liability under § 1983.

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

Enriquez v. Oliver Bell, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice · filed 2013-12-11

With respect to appellant’s section 1983 claim, the United States Supreme Court has held that neither a state, nor its officials, while acting in their official capacity, are “persons” who may be liable for damages under section 1983. ... Accordingly, we conclude appellant cannot maintain his section 1983 claim against the appellees, who were all sued in their official capacity.

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

Kanderskaya v. City of New York · filed 2014-04-09

As an initial matter, I dismiss Kan-derskaya’s claims against Kelly because they are duplicative of her other claims against New York City. Kanderskaya’s claims against Kelly are against him in his (former) official capacity, as an officer of the City. “[A] § 1983 suit against a municipal officer in his official capacity is treated as an action against the municipality itself.”

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

Chaney v. Louisiana Work Force Commission · filed 2014-05-14

It is settled law that a suit against state officials in their official capacities does not qualify as a suit against “persons” under § 1983, and Chaney’s claims must fail.

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

Sherley v. Thompson · filed 2014-11-24

First, state officials sued in their official capacities for money damages are not “person[s]” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Oliver v. Baity · filed 2016-09-23

Accordingly, because Baity, a North Carolina Highway Trooper, is a state actor, Plaintiffs official capacity claims are, in effect, claims against the State which is not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities.

Calzone v. Josh Hawley · filed 2017-08-07

Therefore, it was error for the court to dismiss Calzone’s as-applied claims against the superintendent for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the meaning of “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 treats claims for money damages against state officials in their official capacities as claims against the state.

Stanko v. South Dakota Highway Patrol · filed 2018-03-28

In so far as Mr. Stanko alleges defendants Moser and Dropper violated his constitutional rights in their official capacities, the court finds the § 1983 claims for money damages in counts 1, 3 and 6 are actually claims against the State of South Dakota.

A sheriff enforcing a state-court eviction order acts for the state and cannot be sued for that action under § 1983 in his official capacity.

Daniels v. Grady · filed 2018-04-02

When enforcing the state-court eviction order Kramer was a state actor, and Daniels cannot allege a § 1983 claim for that action.

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

Doe v. Massachusetts Department of Correction · filed 2018-06-14

A § 1983 suit, however, may be brought only against a state official in his personal capacity. A suit against a state government official in his or her official capacity is the same as a suit against the entity [the state] of which the officer is an agent and is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state official in an official capacity when the claim is treated as a suit against the state, which is not a person under the section.

Brown v. Belt · filed 2019-04-15

Further, to the extent that Colonel Smithers is being sued in these counts in his official capacity, those claims are more properly classified as suits against the entity – in this case, the State of West Virginia – which is not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their official capacities for injunctive relief, but not damages.

Kille, Sr. v. Calderin · filed 2019-05-10

However, while a state official may not be sued in an official capacity for damages under § 1983, they may be sued for injunctive relief.

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

Clark v. Jameson · filed 2019-07-31

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

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity suits against state officials for actions taken in their official duties, and sovereign immunity does not bar those suits.

Avery v. Difiore · filed 2019-08-06

In fact, individual-capacity lawsuits against government officers for actions taken in the exercise of their official duties represent the rule, not the exception, in Section 1983 litigation. ... Accordingly, although the question is a close one, the Court concludes that Avery seeks relief against Defendants in their individual capacities and, thus, that the Eleventh Amendment does not pose an obstacle to her claims.

Section 1983 generally does not permit a suit against a state official in an official capacity when the plaintiff seeks no prospective injunctive relief.

Curry v. Obaisi · filed 2019-08-12

A Section 1983 suit against a State official in his or her official capacity is an action against the State itself. But such a suit is generally prohibited.

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

Williamson v. Kenney · filed 2019-08-16

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

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

Redmond v. Birrenkott · filed 2019-08-20

State officials sued for damages in their official capacities are not “persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor for Mr. Redmond’s claim for damages against them in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a state official sued in an official capacity because the official is not a “person” under the section.

Stewart v. Mesrobian · filed 2019-09-10

Neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacity are “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... So, damages are not recoverable on the official capacity claim against Steele under Section 1983.

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

Blatt v. Touchette · filed 2019-09-17

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

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

Goff v. Pickens · filed 2019-10-03

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

A state official sued in his official capacity for damages is not a “person” under § 1983.

Mitchell v. GEO Group Inc · filed 2019-10-04

As a state official, Defendant Honaker is not a “person” under § 1983 insofar as he is sued in his official capacity for damages, and Plaintiff has not stated a claim for any underlying constitutional violation for which he may obtain prospective relief.

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

Elliott v. Segal · filed 2019-10-15

Second, state government officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” properly subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Morris v. Dickman · filed 2019-11-04

The district court also correctly dismissed Morris’s official-capacity claim against Fremgen. This is effectively a claim for damages against the state and thus it is not permitted under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials in their official capacities, though it permits claims for prospective injunctive relief.

WILCOX v. MARTINEZ · filed 2019-11-18

Since a claim against a state official in his or her official capacity is essentially a claim against the state, § 1983 claims are not permitted against state officials in their official capacities, except to the extent that such claims seek prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their individual capacities; sovereign immunity does not bar those claims.

GOODE v. CAMDEN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2019-11-22

It is beyond a doubt that state officials may be sued under Section 1983 in their individual capacities; the statute would be a dead letter if they could not.

Section 1983 permits an individual-capacity damages claim against a state official who acts under color of state law.

Isabell v. Trustees of Indiana University The · filed 2020-01-07

Section 1983 authorizes a cause of action for deprivation of constitutional rights “under color of state law” committed by a “person” that the law defines precisely. Dr. Dobrzykowski is just such a person, but not in her official capacity.

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

Carr v. Pfaffenberger · filed 2020-01-14

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

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

Francis v. Boling · filed 2020-02-04

State officials sued in their official capacities for money damages are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Thus, because Plaintiff seeks damages from a state officer or employee in his official capacity, he fails to allege a cognizable claim under § 1983.

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

Walck v. Bertsch · filed 2020-02-20

A suit for damages against a state official in his official capacity is a suit against the State, and the State is not a person under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against state officials sued in their official capacities, but permits claims for prospective injunctive relief.

Mothe v. Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors · filed 2020-03-09

In this case, Plaintiffs’ improperly seek money damages rather than injunctive relief under § 1983 against Defendants Kim Michel, S.J. Brasseaux, and Dianne Alexander in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not allow claims against a state or its officials in their official capacity because a state is not a person under the statute.

Marin v. Griffith · filed 2020-03-16

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 does not permit damages claims against state officials in their official capacities when those claims are effectively against the state.

Malone v. Privratsky · filed 2020-01-30

Furthermore, Congress has not abrogated State sovereign immunity against suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Plaintiff's official capacity claims against Defendant are tantamount to claims against the State of California, which are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

State officials sued in their official capacities are not persons subject to suit under § 1983 and are immune from damages claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

Adkins v. Chandler · filed 2020-02-24

The magistrate judge found that “to the extent [] David Ballard, or any other defendant, is being sued in an official capacity, they are not ‘persons’ subject to suit under section 1983 and are otherwise immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.” ... Instead, the magistrate judge’s finding is correctly based on the above-cited precedent, which extends immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to state officials. ... Accordingly, this objection is overruled.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state prison employees sued only in their official capacities.

Gilmer v. Elsinger · filed 2020-04-13

Suits against prison employees in their official capacities are suits against the state itself.

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

Ross v. Carver · filed 2020-05-05

“[N]Jeither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” ... Thus, plaintiff's claims against these named defendants in their “official capacities” cannot be sustained.

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

Frazier v. Trulock · filed 2020-05-06

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

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

Costello v. Kenney · filed 2020-05-26

In addition, when a state official is sued in his official capacity for monetary damages, he is not a “person” subject to suit within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for monetary damages against a state official sued in an official capacity because that official is not a person subject to suit under the section.

Edelen v. Mazza · filed 2020-07-01

In addition, when a state official is sued in his official capacity for monetary damages, he is not a “person” subject to suit within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 permits claims against state officials in their personal capacities.

Foster v. State of Washington · filed 2020-07-16

However, neither the Eleventh Amendment nor § 1983 bar claims against state officials in their personal capacities.

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

Thacker v. Graves · filed 2020-07-20

A state official sued in his official capacity for damages is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Kucinsky v. Pfister · filed 2020-07-29

Therefore, a suit against Pfister, in his official capacity as the warden of Pontiac, was a suit against IDOC, a state entity, and thus, a suit against the state. Consequently, the circuit court could not entertain a ... section 1983 action for damages against Pfister in his official capacity.

A state is not a person subject to suit under § 1983, so official-capacity claims against its employees fail.

Wright v. Anderson · filed 2020-08-12

Thus, because a state is not a “person” for the purposes of § 1983 and a suit against the state is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, plaintiff’s claim against defendants Anderson, Bye, and Hacker in their official capacities will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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

Wright v. Lassiter · filed 2020-08-14

It is well settled that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A § 1983 official-capacity claim against a successor official requires a basis to conclude that an institutional policy or custom will persist under the successor.

Muslow v. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College · filed 2020-08-18

Thus, unless “an official’s actions reflect an institutional policy that could be assumed to persist under that official’s successor,” a suit against the official’s successor is moot and must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

State officials sued in their official capacity are not persons under Section 1983.

Krauss v. Mississippi County · filed 2020-09-24

“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” ... As such, the complaint is legally frivolous as to defendant Jay Holcomb in his official capacity, and plaintiffs claim against him will be dismissed.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief, but does not permit damages against the state.

Chuol v. Frankes · filed 2020-11-13

State officials sued in their official capacities for injunctive relief are “persons” under section 1983, because official capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.

Section 1983 does not permit an official-capacity damages claim against a state judge because the state is not a person subject to suit.

Frisby v. The State of California Department of Justice · filed 2020-11-23

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 claims against state officials in their official capacities because those claims are treated as claims against the state.

Coronado v. Paralta · filed 2020-11-30

The rule that state agencies cannot be sued under § 1983 also applies to claims against state officials in their official capacities.

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

Glenn-El v. Fluharty · filed 2020-12-09

As discussed above, the State of Missouri is not a person for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.