42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits against states.

Wu v. Thomas · filed 1989-01-23

The eleventh amendment continues to be an obstacle to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In Florida state courts, a § 1983 action against the state or its agencies cannot proceed to the extent state sovereign immunity protects them; state law determines whether that immunity exists.

Howlett Ex Rel. Howlett v. Rose · filed 1989-02-01

Thus, to the extent that the actions of the state and its agencies are protected by sovereign immunity, an action pursuant to section 1983 will not lie in state courts. The question of whether that sovereign immunity exists is a question of state law and not federal law.

Section 1983 does not itself abrogate a state’s traditional sovereign immunity.

State v. Sorensen · filed 1989-02-22

Section 1983 does not itself abrogate states’ traditional sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state Eleventh Amendment immunity; that immunity does not bar official-capacity equitable relief or individual-capacity damages against state officers.

Wu v. Thomas · filed 1989-03-08

The eleventh amendment continues to be an obstacle to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (reaffirming Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), which held that Congress did not intend section 1983 to create a waiver of eleventh amendment immunity). The eleventh amendment does not, however, bar suits for equitable relief against state officers in their official capacity, see Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), nor does the amendment preclude a damages award against state officials in their individual capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Hawaii’s State Tort Liability Act does not waive that immunity for civil rights suits.

Au v. State · filed 1989-04-12

However, while Congress has the power with respect to the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Supreme Court has held that this immunity was not abrogated by Congress when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... It is clear from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, that Hawaii’s State Tort Liability Act is not an express waiver of the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from civil rights suits. Thus, if Au’s claim in this Court is construed as a § 1983 civil rights action, it must again be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from suits for money damages.

Krozser v. City of New Haven · filed 1989-08-01

Section 1983 does not abrogate the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so claims for monetary relief against state officials that would draw on the state treasury are barred.

Rannels v. Hargrove · filed 1990-02-20

First, his claims for monetary relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; though they proceed against officials, rather than against the Commonwealth, claims for monetary relief strike against the public purse and hence are in essence claims against the Commonwealth.

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

Corum v. University of North Carolina Ex Rel. Board of Governors · filed 1990-03-20

As to these same three defendants in their official capacities, however, plaintiff’s section 1983 claim, as it relates to prospective injunctive relief, is not barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a money damages claim against a Kentucky school board protected by state sovereign immunity.

Clevinger v. Board of Educ. of Pike County · filed 1990-04-26

Thus, because in this Commonwealth a School Board is protected by state sovereign immunity from a suit for money damages for an injury wrongfully inflicted, whether the cause of action is common law or statutory, and because the United States Supreme Court has decided that where such is the case the state sovereign immunity defense will prevail against a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirm the decision of the trial court dismissing the claim for money damages in this case.

Sovereign immunity bars retroactive recovery of AFDC support reimbursements in a Section 1983 action against a state absent waiver, at least where no bad faith, racial discrimination, or other constitutionally impermissible purpose is alleged or shown.

Wellman v. Department of Human Services · filed 1990-05-07

In Thiboutot v. State, 405 A.2d 230 (Me.1979), aff'd, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980), we concluded that sovereign immunity barred retroactive recovery of AFDC welfare underpayments by plaintiff class members in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action at least when, as here, there is no allegation or evidence of bad faith, racial discrimination or other constitutionally impermissible purpose. Thiboutot, 405 A.2d at 237. In the absence of the State’s waiver of its sovereign immunity, that immunity likewise bars retroactive recovery of AFDC support reimbursements by the plaintiff class in this case.

Section 1983 does not override state sovereign immunity for constitutional claims against a state agency.

Gierlinger v. New York State Police · filed 1990-05-31

Congress has overridden state’s sovereign immunity respecting Title VII claims —Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 452, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2669, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976)—but not respecting constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

State law cannot give a governmental defendant subject to § 1983 liability an additional sovereign-immunity defense.

Howlett Ex Rel. Howlett v. Rose · filed 1990-06-11

If the District Court of Appeal meant to hold that governmental entities subject to § 1983 liability enjoy an immunity over and above those already provided in § 1983, that holding directly violates federal law.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for official-capacity suits against state officials.

Romero v. Lane · filed 1990-11-27

Sec. 1983 did not abrogate the eleventh amendment.

Sovereign immunity bars Section 1983 damages claims against Connecticut and its officers in their official capacities absent authorization to sue, but does not bar claims against officers in their individual capacities.

Hackett v. State, No. 352161 (Nov. 28, 1990) · filed 1990-11-28

Accordingly, since the State has not waived its immunity from suit for money damages, it is found that sovereign immunity requires the dismissal of all claims against the defendant State and state officers acting in their official capacity. However, sovereign immunity does not bar the plaintiff's claim against the named defendants Horn, Lopes, and Meachum in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 does not override state sovereign immunity, so a state agency cannot be sued under it without the state’s consent.

Southern Pacific Transportation Company v. City Of Los Angeles · filed 1990-12-04

The state has not consented to be sued under Sec. 1983 and Congress did not override states' sovereign immunity when it enacted Sec. 1983.

A state agency is immune from section 1983 damages when a judgment against it would be a judgment against the state.

Keller v. Prince George's County Prince George's County Department of Social Services · filed 1991-01-08

Accordingly, the district court erred in granting the Department’s motion for summary judgment on collateral estoppel grounds, but this error does not require us to remand because we hold that the Department is immune from section 1983 damages under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Georgia sovereign immunity does not bar an action brought under § 1983.

Kilgo v. Department of Corrections · filed 1991-11-22

Sovereign immunity is not a bar to an action alleging violation of a constitutional right (Smith v. Floyd County, 85 Ga. 420 (2) (11 SE 850) (1890)) or an action brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Barnes v. State of Missouri · filed 1992-03-23

Congress has not waived the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting § 1983.

A Section 1983 claim against the state requires a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Connecticut Employees Union v. Weicker, No. Cv91-702620 (May 14, 1992) · filed 1992-05-14

2. Second Count — Sec. 1983 No waiver is seen for this count.

Section 1983 damages claims against an unconsenting state or its agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Rough v. Montana State Dept. of Family Services · filed 1992-06-15

Therefore, the Roughs' claims for damages under section 1983 are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Williams v. State of Missouri · filed 1992-07-21

First, this court has held that Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity from suit.

Fetter v. United States · filed 1992-08-20

Section 1983 is a remedial statute, and it does not unequivocally express a consent to be sued on the part of the government. Thus, it is not a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Connecticut sovereign immunity, so a plaintiff seeking monetary damages against the state in state court must first obtain the claims commissioner’s consent.

Kinney v. Connecticut Judicial Dept., No. Cv91-395815 (Dec. 22, 1992) · filed 1992-12-22

Accordingly, with respect to her section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must also allege facts showing that she first obtained the consent of the claims commissioner prior to bringing her section 1983 action in the state court.

State sovereign immunity law cannot bar a § 1983 action against state officers merely because their conduct falls outside the state law exceptions to immunity.

Heinly v. Commonwealth · filed 1993-02-26

Because the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act does not immunize the Unnamed Police Officers from an action brought under a cause of action created under federal law, Heinly’s Section 1983 action cannot be foreclosed merely because the conduct of the Unnamed Police Officers does not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity.

Section 1983 does not treat a state official sued in an official capacity as a person distinct from the state, so sovereign immunity applies to the official-capacity claim.

Whitehead v. University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · filed 1993-03-31

The suit is against the state, not the named individual, and thus the official is not a “person” for purposes of a Section 1983 cause of action. ... Sovereign immunity applied to the Health Science Center and was available to all employees acting within their official capacities.

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim against state university board members in their individual capacities.

Idoux v. Lamar University System · filed 1993-04-07

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of the claims and parties to which sovereign immunity applies, there yet exists in this case several claims and parties, namely the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments against the members of the Board of Regents in their individual capacity, that are not affected by sovereign immunity.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 suits against a state and its agencies in federal court.

Eisfelder v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources · filed 1993-11-16

However, the eleventh amendment case law is clear that a state and its agencies cannot be sued under section 1983 consistent with the eleventh amendment. ... Accordingly, count I must be dismissed as to defendant DNR due to lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1983 does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity from civil damages claims.

Simmons v. Revenue Officers, Steve Daniels, Keith Farrar, & Cory Armstrong, 1117 · filed 1994-02-11

In plaintiffs objections, jurisdiction is claimed to be proper under the following statutes: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1340, 1361, 1391(e), 2410(a) and 2463; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. None of these statutes waive the sovereign immunity of the government and therefore plaintiffs claim should be dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Rufus A. Averhart, Also Known as Zolo Agona Azania v. Shettle · filed 1994-04-06

A suit against a state official in his official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office. Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464 (1985). As such, it is no different from a suit against the state itself. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). The doctrine of sovereign immunity, as embodied in the Eleventh Amendment, bars Averhart from collecting monetary damages from the State of Indiana absent an express waiver of immunity, see Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989), and no such waiver exists here.

Section 1983 suits against Washington are barred in federal court by the state’s sovereign immunity, although Washington has waived that immunity in its own courts.

Janelle A. Smith v. State of Washington · filed 1994-05-13

The State of Washington has waived its sovereign immunity to section 1983 actions in its own courts, but not in federal courts. ... Thus, because there is no genuine issue of material fact and the State of Washington clearly is immune from suit, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for the state.

Section 1983 does not permit a county to obtain contribution from its state for unconstitutional jail conditions because Congress did not unequivocally abrogate the state’s immunity from such claims.

Harris v. Angelina County, Tex. · filed 1994-09-13

We are unable to find an unequivocal expression of congressional intent to subject states to claims for contribution from their own political subdivisions.

Section 1983 does not subject a state to a county’s claim for contribution arising from alleged civil rights violations, even assuming defendants generally may seek contribution under the section.

Harris v. Angelina County · filed 1994-10-13

The first is whether contribution is generally available to a defendant sued for violation of a plaintiff's civil rights under Sec. 1983. The second is whether, assuming there is such a general right to contribution, a federal court has authority to grant relief in favor of a political subdivision of a state and against the state itself. We need not answer the first question here, although we note that other courts have struggled with it and have reached different conclusions. ... Nevertheless, we conclude that the County should not be able to seek relief against the State defendants. ... We are unable to find an unequivocal expression of congressional intent to subject states to claims for contribution from their own political subdivisions.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Johnsen v. Collins · filed 1994-11-22

Section 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy many deprivations of civil liberties, but it does not provide a federal forum to litigants suing a State for deprivations of civil liberties.

Sovereign immunity bars a Section 1983 suit against an arm of a state that has not waived its immunity.

STONER v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE · filed 1995-03-23

He cannot sue an arm of the state of Wisconsin, which has not waived sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a claim against a state department of corrections cannot proceed in federal court without a clear waiver of immunity.

Jordan v. New Jersey Department of Corrections · filed 1995-03-31

Thus, a § 1983 action against the DOC cannot be maintained in a federal court absent a clear waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages suits in federal court.

De Young v. State of Kan. · filed 1995-05-09

"In enacting [42 U.S.C.] section 1983, Congress did not intend to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity and grant jurisdiction to seek damages against a state." ... Because none of the three exceptions applies here, the State of Kansas is immune from federal suit and this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's claim.

Section 1983 does not overcome a state's immunity from suit in federal court unless the state waives it.

Swan v. Cochran · filed 1995-05-19

Moreover, absent waiver, states are immune from suits brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in federal court.

A state department is barred by sovereign immunity from a direct § 1983 claim.

Sasnett v. Department of Corrections · filed 1995-06-23

Because sovereign immunity bars claims brought directly against the state, defendant Department of Corrections will be dismissed on the court’s own motion.

Section 1983 claims against a state are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state consents to suit, regardless of the relief sought.

Starks-El v. USA · filed 1995-10-16

David Starks-El filed a pro se, in forma pauperis civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the United States and the states of Texas and Louisiana seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. ... In the absence of consent to be sued, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state. Cronen v. Texas Dep't of Human Serv., 977 F.2d 934, 937 (5th Cir. 1992). This jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought. Id. Starks-El has not demonstrated that either Texas or Louisiana consented to be sued. The district court properly dismissed the claims against these defendants as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate sovereign immunity, so state officials cannot be sued in their official capacities for monetary damages without the state’s consent.

Joyner v. Farrar, No. 377023 (Oct. 31, 1995) · filed 1995-10-31

State officials may not be sued in their official capacities for monetary damages unless the state consents to be sued.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1983 claims against a state.

John v. Colen v. United States of America State of California · filed 1996-01-30

The district court properly dismissed Colen's claims against the State of California because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Official-capacity § 1983 claims against state officials are treated as claims against the State and are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the State waives immunity or the plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief.

Rapp v. Disciplinary Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court · filed 1996-02-02

... claims against the State Defendants in their official capacities are in fact claims against the State of Hawaii. ... Accordingly, the suit will be barred unless (1) the State of Hawaii has unequivocally waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, or (2) Rapp seeks prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

Cook v. McLaughlin · filed 1996-02-29

The Eleventh Amendment similarly bars plaintiffs § 1983 claim against Connecticut because Congress, in enacting that statute, did not intend to abrogate the immunity afforded by that Amendment.

Section 1983 permits suits against municipalities in state court, where state law sovereign immunity is neither a defense nor a bar to jurisdiction.

Carter v. CITY OF LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO · filed 1996-03-08

Accordingly, New Mexico state courts must entertain § 1983 claims against municipalities, and state law sovereign immunity is neither a defense nor a bar to subject matter jurisdiction.

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

White v. State of Colorado Roy Romer Aristedes Zavaras Dave Holt Roderic Gottula Joseph McGarry · filed 1996-04-24

The district court did not err in granting defendants summary judgment, based upon Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds, on the § 1983 claims plaintiff asserted against defendants, hr their official capacity, for money damages and a declaratory judgment.

Section 1983 claims for retrospective monetary relief against an Alabama sheriff in his official capacity are barred in federal court by the state’s sovereign immunity.

Miles v. Kilgore · filed 1996-06-05

...this United States District Court For The Northern District of Alabama holds that Count Four of Plaintiffs state court original Complaint against this Alabama Sheriff Defendant in his official capacity was and is jurisdietionally barred from federal court by the State of Alabama’s sovereign immunity.

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

Gorka v. Sullivan · filed 1996-06-12

The amended complaint, for the first time, asserted § 1983 claims against Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Verdier in their individual capacities but also retained the claims against them in their official capacities. ... In addition, while the amendment set out, for the first time, federal claims against the officials in their individual capacity, it maintained damage claims against those persons in their official capacity as well. The official capacity claims for retrospective relief are clearly barred.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective relief against a state judge in an official capacity when the judge is alleged to have violated federal law, despite Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Warnock v. Pecos County Texas · filed 1996-07-09

Plaintiff’s claim for prospective relief (reinstatement), however, is not barred by sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that the state officials acted in violation of federal law.

Section 1983 does not overcome sovereign immunity for monetary claims against state officials in their official capacities when the state has not consented to suit; individual-capacity claims are not categorically barred.

Bellino, Sr. v. Dept. of Correction John Doe (S), No. 379427 (Aug. 7, 1996) · filed 1996-08-07

Although the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities, it does not necessarily bar the claims against them in their individual capacities.

States and state actors acting in their official capacities are immune from suit under § 1983.

Carlson v. Micander · filed 1996-11-25

The state of Texas and any of its actors acting in their official capacity are immune from suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats Inc. v. State of NY · filed 1997-02-13

Plaintiffs do not dispute that Section 1983 does not abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... The State’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is granted. Because plaintiffs’ claims against the State under the RFRA and Section 1983 are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims against the State under New York Civil Rights Law § 40-c and the New York State Constitution, Article 1, § 11.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state agency and state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity absent an authoritative state waiver.

Schacht v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections · filed 1997-06-17

Since the State of Wisconsin would be the real party in interest with respect to the official capacity and WDOC claims, the district court could not adjudicate those claims without an authoritative waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity.

A state protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity cannot be sued under Section 1983.

McWilliams v. State of Colorado · filed 1997-08-11

In any event, under the Eleventh Amendment the State of Colorado is immune from § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Whayne v. State · filed 1997-09-25

Congress did not intend to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted the civil rights statute of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A state university that is an arm of the state is immune from a Section 1983 suit under sovereign immunity.

Eguizabal v. University of Wash. · filed 1997-10-24

The district court did not err by dismissing Eguizabal's claims against defendant University under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, because, as an arm of the state, the University of Washington was immune from suit.

The Eleventh Amendment generally bars § 1983 damages claims in federal court against a state and its employees.

Kurta v. California State of Los Angeles City of Susan Rempel-Black James A. Stevens Vera Weisz Richard K. Roge · filed 1997-11-20

Moreover, because the Eleventh Amendment generally bars actions in federal court against states or state agencies, the district court properly dismissed Kurta's claims seeking damages from the state and its employees See Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 938 (1992).

States and their agencies are immune from suits under § 1983.

Proctor v. Vadlamudi · filed 1998-02-02

Agencies of the state, as well as the state itself, are immune from suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

State-law sovereign immunity does not apply to § 1983 claims brought in federal court.

American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County · filed 1998-03-04

As a result, state sovereign immunity is not applicable to claims made in federal court under § 1983.

State sovereign immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against state officers sued individually.

Newton v. Etoch · filed 1998-03-19

We hold that Newton and Carruth are not immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the § 1983 cause of action or from the state-law tort claims.

State sovereign immunity cannot bar a Section 1983 action in state court.

Schnupp v. Port Authority of Allegheny County · filed 1998-04-02

More significantly, given the present fact scenario, the trial court’s reliance upon sovereign immunity is misplaced. ... [A] state may not lessen the availability of Section 1983 by taking any action purportedly frustrating its application.

Section 1983 does not waive sovereign immunity for claims against the United States or federal employees acting in their official capacities.

Bernard v. Calejo · filed 1998-04-17

In addition, section 1983 does not contain an express waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not provide a cause of action against the United States or federal employees acting in their official capacities.

Section 1983 claims against state agencies are barred by sovereign immunity.

Ex Parte MacOn County Dhr · filed 1998-05-01

The United States Supreme Court has held that state entities are immune from § 1983 claims. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). We conclude that the State DHR and the Macon County DHR are entitled to have their summary judgment motion granted on the ground of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 claims against the USDA are barred by sovereign immunity because that immunity has not been waived.

D.C. Hollingsworth Enterprises, Inc. v. United States of America Department of Agriculture · filed 1998-06-02

Finally, the district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction over the USDA on Appellant's § 1983 claim because the USDA's sovereign immunity has not been waived.

State-law sovereign immunity is not a defense to a Section 1983 action.

Caudill v. Dellinger · filed 1998-06-16

Sovereign immunity alleged under state law, however, is not a defense to an action under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity; a claim against the state requires its consent to suit.

Doe v. State, No. 410586 (Oct. 26, 1998) · filed 1998-10-26

The court, therefore, does not have jurisdiction over counts two and three of the plaintiff's complaint. The same is true of count five, which asserts a cause of action pursuant to the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Section 1983 does not waive a state's sovereign immunity from suit.

Aguilar v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 1998-12-29

Section 1983 does not waive the states' sovereign immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 338 n. 7, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979), and Texas has not consented to this suit.

Section 1983 claims in state court cannot be dismissed on the sovereign-immunity ground applied here.

Petta v. Rivera · filed 1999-02-25

We also conclude sovereign immunity does not bar Petta’s section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

United States v. MacK · filed 1999-04-22

Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting § 1983.

Sovereign immunity does not necessarily bar a Section 1983 claim.

Kapil v. Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties · filed 1983-12-30

I agree with the majority that appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim (Count I) is not barred by sovereign immunity.

A § 1983 suit against state officials can proceed under Ex parte Young as to provisions they can enforce, but sovereign immunity bars a claim challenging provisions they have no authority to enforce.

Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. Pryor · filed 1999-07-15

We hold that Appellees' challenge to the statutes' criminal liability provisions falls squarely within the exception to the Eleventh Amendment embodied in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), and, therefore, that the district court did not err in denying Appellants' motion to dismiss this § 1983 action on these grounds. However, with respect to Appellees' challenge to the private civil enforcement provision embodied in the partial-birth abortion statute, we conclude that, because Appellants have no enforcement authority over those specific provisions, the Ex parte Young exception does not apply, and Alabama's sovereign immunity bars this specific claim.

A § 1983 suit against state officials may proceed under Ex parte Young to challenge provisions they can enforce, but sovereign immunity bars a claim against them concerning provisions they have no authority to enforce.

Summit Medical Associates v. James · filed 1999-07-15

We hold that Appellees’ challenge to the statutes’ criminal liability provisions falls squarely within the exception to the Eleventh Amendment embodied in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), and, therefore, that the district court did not err in denying Appellants’ motion to dismiss this § 1983 action on these grounds. However, with respect to Appellees’ challenge to the private civil enforcement provision embodied in the partial-birth abortion statute, we conclude that, because Appellants have no enforcement authority over those specific provisions, the Ex parte Young exception does not apply, and Alabama’s sovereign immunity bars this specific claim.

A state is not a person subject to suit under § 1983, and Connecticut has not waived its sovereign immunity for such suits.

De Hass v. University of State, No. Cv 99 69640 S (Aug. 17, 1999) · filed 1999-08-17

The state is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and the state has not waived its sovereign immunity and agreed to be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Sovereign immunity bars Section 1983 claims for money damages against a state agency and its members in their official capacities.

Anobile v. Pelligrino · filed 1999-08-25

On March 29, 1999, this Court dismissed on the ground of sovereign immunity plaintiffs’ claims for money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or § 1985 against the New York State Racing and Wagering Board and its members in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so state agencies and state officials sued in their official capacities remain protected from suit in federal court absent consent.

Hill v. Goord · filed 1999-09-02

Section 1983 has been held not to have abrogated states’ sovereign immunity. ... Because Hill has named as defendants the six individual State defendants in their official capacities and the New York State Division of Parole, Division of Probation, and Corrections, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his claims.

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

Gaynor v. Martin · filed 1999-11-29

Likewise, States are not suable under § 1983. ... This is also true as to State officials sued in their official capacities. ... Thus, we dismiss plaintiffs claims under section 1981 and 1983 against the Commission and Martin in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so claims against a state or its agencies are barred whether they seek damages or injunctive relief.

Daisernia v. State of NY · filed 1984-03-22

Accordingly, the court concludes that the eleventh amendment completely proscribes plaintiff’s § 1983 action insofar as it is asserted against the State of New York, NYSDCS, and Greene Haven Correctional Facility. That bar applies both to the demand for damages and the demand for injunctive relief under § 1983.

Sovereign immunity bars § 1983 claims against New York State.

Finn-Verburg v. New York State Department of Labor · filed 2000-11-08

All claims against New York State brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York Civil Service Law, the New York Human Rights Law, and New York common law (such as intentional infliction of emotional distress) are barred by sovereign immunity.

A state that has not waived sovereign immunity cannot be sued for damages under § 1983 in federal court.

McFadden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2001-02-23

The state of Michigan has not consented to civil rights suits in the federal courts, ... so McFadden’s claims against the state for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The IDEA’s abrogation of sovereign immunity does not extend to claims under Section 1983.

BOARD OF EDUC., PAWLING CENTRAL SCHOOL v. Schutz · filed 2001-04-03

Because the IDEA's abrogation of sovereign immunity only extends to claims brought pursuant to that statute, the State defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity as to the Section 1983 cause of action.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency and a state official sued only in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Board of Education of the Pawling Central School District v. Schutz · filed 2001-04-03

It is well-settled that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to suits brought against the state pursuant to Section 1983. ... Moreover, because SRO Munoz is sued only in his official capacity, this cause of action must be dismissed against him as well.

Tribal plaintiffs may maintain § 1983 claims against state defendants when the United States intervenes and the claims arise from the same subject matter as its claims.

Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. New York · filed 2001-05-30

The State’s position is noted, but this court will follow its previous rationale in Cayuga. As outlined in the factual history above, the tribal plaintiffs’ and the United States’ claims here flow from the same subject matter and, thus at least for now, the court holds that the complaints are “virtually identical” for Eleventh Amendment purposes. ... Accordingly, the tribal plaintiffs may maintain their current claims and the relief they seek against the State defendants.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity unless that immunity is waived.

McCartney v. May · filed 2001-06-07

Appellants established that they were entitled to sovereign immunity on May’s section 1983 claims to the degree they were sued in their official capacities. Because May failed to establish a waiver of that immunity, appellants were entitled to summary judgment to that extent and the trial court’s denial was error.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief under Ex parte Young despite state sovereign immunity.

John Roe 2 v. Ogden · filed 2001-06-19

An individual may bring an ADA or § 1983 action against a state official in ... federal court for injunctive relief under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity from suits in federal court.

State Contracting & Engineering Corp. v. Florida · filed 2001-07-20

In Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979), the Supreme Court recognized that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity for suits in federal court. ... In light of Quern, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Florida on the takings claim.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states' sovereign immunity from suits in federal court.

State Contracting Engineering v. Florida · filed 2001-07-20

In Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979), the Supreme Court recognized that 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 did not abrogate the states' sovereign immunity for suits in federal court. ... In light of Quern, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Florida on the takings claim.

A state agency is immune from a Section 1983 suit in federal court unless the state waives immunity or Congress overrides it.

Edwards v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Revenue Cabinet · filed 2001-08-10

The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against a state or one of its agencies in federal court unless the state has waived its immunity or unless Congress has exercised its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to override that immunity. ... Thus, the Cabinet is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a Kentucky state agency.

A state agency that has not consented to suit is immune from a § 1983 claim in state court.

Smith v. State Department of Social Services, No. 439313 (Oct. 2, 2001) · filed 2001-10-02

The Department is plainly an arm of the State for purposes of this doctrine. Neither the State nor the Department have consented to the § 1983 action asserted in Count Two. (The CHRO's release of jurisdiction consents to some of the causes of action set forth in Smith's complaint but not this one.) Count Two's claim against the Department is thus precluded by Alden v. Maine .

A state and its agencies are immune from a § 1983 action in federal court unless immunity is expressly waived, including when the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.

Damstoft v. Ohio · filed 2001-10-30

The district court properly dismissed Damstoft’s complaint because the State of Ohio is entitled to sovereign immunity. Unless immunity is expressly waived, a state and its agencies are immune from an action for damages and injunctive relief, and in some cases even declaratory relief, in federal court.

Section 1983 claims for retrospective relief against a state corrections department or its officers in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

Mitchell v. Massachusetts Department of Correction · filed 2002-03-08

Upon de novo review, this court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation. ... Thus, insofar as Plaintiffs section 1983 claim is directed either at the DOC or at Bissonnette or Maloney in their official capacities, the court will recommend that it be dismissed. ... Unfortunately for Plaintiff, his section 1983 claim cannot be viewed under the Ex parte Young doctrine in that he requests no prospective injunctive relief.

A Section 1983 action against a state is barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the state has not consented to suit.

Smith v. Oregon · filed 2002-03-21

The district court properly dismissed this action under the Eleventh Amendment because the State of Oregon has not consented to suit.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against New York State because the state has not waived its sovereign immunity.

Aa v. Board of Educ., Central Islip Union Free · filed 2002-04-18

Under these circumstances, the court finds these cases unpersuasive and instead adheres to the well-established rule that money damages are not available against the State of New York in a lawsuit brought pursuant to Section 1983.

Section 1983 claims against state entities and state officials in their official capacities are barred when those defendants have sovereign immunity.

Salvador v. Adirondack Park Agency · filed 2002-04-26

All the institutional defendants and the individual defendants acting in their official capacities have sovereign immunity under our traditional analysis.

The IDEA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to § 1983 claims.

Board Of Education Of The Pawling Central School District v. Schutz · filed 2002-05-13

This argument overlooks the obvious fact that § 1403(a)'s waiver of sovereign immunity extends only to claims brought pursuant to the IDEA, not claims brought pursuant to § 1983 or some other statute.

Section 1983 claims against a state university are barred by sovereign immunity; a plaintiff seeking damages from state officials must clearly plead that they are sued in their individual capacities.

Underfer v. University of Toledo · filed 2002-06-05

Because the University is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, Underfer’s claims for monetary and injunctive relief against the University are therefore barred. Furthermore, given that Underfer makes a claim for only monetary damages against Bopp, Fry, and Horton, and because Underfer failed to set forth in his complaint that he intended to sue these defendants in their individual capacities, these claims are likewise barred under the Eleventh Amendment. The University and the individual defendants are immune from § 1983 claims as they were pleaded here, and these claims must be dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against Pennsylvania’s Department of Transportation because state sovereign immunity bars it.

Petsinger v. PA. DEPT. OF TRANSP. · filed 2002-07-01

Thus, Plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 action against PennDOT.

States and their agencies are immune from claims under Section 1983 in state and federal court.

Board of Regents of State v. Snyder · filed 2002-07-19

Thus, the Board of Regents is immune from claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state and federal court.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity from suit in federal court.

Breen v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY · filed 2002-07-23

Significantly, Texas has not consented to be sued in federal court by individuals regarding the 1999 Bonfire collapse, nor has state sovereign immunity been abrogated or compromised by Congress with the passage of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state university is immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court absent a waiver.

Kimmel Ex Rel. Estate of Kimmel v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY · filed 2002-07-23

Significantly, Texas has not consented to be sued in federal court by individuals regarding the 1999 Bonfire collapse, nor has state sovereign immunity been abrogated or compromised by Congress with the passage of § 1983.

A plaintiff seeking damages from the state under § 1983 in Connecticut superior court must obtain permission to sue from the Claims Commissioner when sovereign immunity applies.

Redman v. Connecticut Dss, No. Cv 99 008 98 90 (Jul. 26, 2002) · filed 2002-07-26

Plaintiff has not requested or obtained permission to sue from the Claims Commissioner. C.G.S. §§ 4-147 et seq. Without such, "[t]he superior court . . . has no authority to hear a claim for monetary damages against the state when the doctrine of sovereign immunity is applicable." [Footnote omitted.] Krozser v. New Haven , 212 Conn. 415 , 424 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1036 (1990). The same applies to an action brought pursuant to the federal "color of law statutes. Id., 427.

State-law sovereign immunity cannot bar a Section 1983 action in state court.

Owens v. Shannon · filed 2002-10-10

Consequently, the trial court erred in analyzing Owens’ Section 1983 claim under Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA because a state sovereign immunity analysis has no place in Section 1983 actions.

Section 1983 does not expressly waive the federal government's sovereign immunity.

Saucerman v. Norton · filed 2002-11-19

By their terms, §§ 1983 and 1985 contain no explicit waiver of sovereign immunity by the federal government.

A county cannot assert sovereign immunity against a Section 1983 claim alleging a federal rights violation caused by its official action.

Peverall v. County of Alamance · filed 2002-12-03

Because the alleged federal violation occurred as a result of defendant’s official action, defendant is not immune from plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Title 42, section 1983, on the basis of sovereign immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar Section 1983 claims against state officials in their individual capacities, even when they acted in accordance with state law.

Ford v. Reynolds · filed 2003-01-17

“However, the eleventh amendment does not extend to a suit against a state official in his [or her] individual capacity, even when the conduct complained of was carried out in accordance with state law.” ... The district court did not address the claims against the defendants-appellees in their individual capacities. The parties agree that this was error, because Reynolds, Diaz, Minter, Brown, McCabe and Elrique were each named in their individual, as well as official, capacities.

State officials sued in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 claim when the complaint presents no valid claim for prospective injunctive relief.

Ford v. Reynolds · filed 2003-01-17

Reynolds, Diaz, Minter, Brown, McCabe and Elrique, as they are named in their official capacities, are each entitled to summary judgment on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities can survive a sovereign immunity challenge when the allegations support that the officials exceeded their statutory authority.

Morgan v. Bubar, No. Cv-02-0562555 S (Feb. 10, 2003) · filed 2003-02-10

In counts two and four, the plaintiff alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Carini and Castronova for violating her equal protection rights and due process rights guaranteed to her by the fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution . These claims are based on the Carini's and Castronova's alleged failures to investigate, or to initiate an investigation, of a report of violence in the work place alleged to have been committed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that such failures are in contradiction to a requirement under an executive order addressing violence in the workplace. These allegations, also construed in the manner most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to support a conclusion that the defendants acted in excess of statutory authority such that the defendants are not shielded by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Puerto Rico's sovereign immunity from suit in federal court.

Maysonet-Robles v. Cabrero · filed 2003-03-14

Whether or not Puerto Rico's long-held sovereign immunity is constitutional or common-law in nature, it has not been abrogated by Congress here.

Section 1983 suits against state officers in their individual capacities for constitutional violations do not implicate state sovereign immunity.

Miranda B. v. Kitzhaber · filed 2003-05-14

Clearly sovereign immunity is not directly implicated: suits brought under § 1983 against individual officers in their individual capacity for violations of the Constitution do not implicate sovereign immunity.

A local school board may not assert sovereign immunity against a constitutional claim under § 1983.

Ripellino v. SCHOOL BOARD ASS'N, INC. · filed 2003-06-17

The Board may not assert a defense of sovereign immunity against plaintiffs' constitutional § 1983 claims.

A local school board may not assert sovereign immunity as a defense to a constitutional claim under § 1983.

Ripellino v. North Carolina School Boards Ass'n · filed 2003-06-17

The Board may not assert a defense of sovereign immunity against plaintiffs’ constitutional § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 claims against Puerto Rico agencies are barred by the Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity.

Toa Baja Development Corporation v. Santiago · filed 1970-05-05

The Court now holds that the immunity of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as sovereign extends to its agencies, The Planning Board and The Department of Public Works.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Antonelli v. New Jersey · filed 2004-03-31

It is also well-established that Congress’s passage of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not override states’ traditional sovereign immunity.

Manning v. Mining & Minerals Division of the Energy, Minerals, & Natural Resources Department · filed 2004-05-11

42 U.S.C. § 1983, the most obvious example of a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, does not override the states’ traditional sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state when the Eleventh Amendment bars them.

Doe v. Maher · filed 1986-07-11

Doe and Smith fare no better in seeking to employ section 1983 to impose liability in damages against the state. Such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not allow a damages action against a territory as an entity when sovereign immunity has not been waived or consented to.

Ferstle v. American Samoa Government · filed 1987-05-22

The conclusion follows that plaintiffs’ action under 42 U.S.C. i 1983 directed against ASG for monetary damages is subject to the territory’s claim to immunity as asserted in its answer filed herein.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Philip Wayne Berryman and Chester Joseph Krupinski v. Johnson · filed 1991-08-06

It is clear that Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to this section, see Welch v. State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 483 U.S. 468, 474 (1987), but it is equally clear that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, the statute under which the plaintiffs have sued here, was not designed to accomplish such a result.

A county juvenile training facility is not immune from a § 1983 suit as an arm of the state when the county would pay a judgment and provides most of its funding.

S.J. v. Hamilton County, Ohio Hillcrest Training School and William H. Hamilton · filed 2004-06-22

We conclude that Hillcrest is not an arm of the state.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a State’s sovereign immunity.

Lopes v. Commonwealth · filed 2004-07-09

Neither Federal statute relied on by the plaintiffs — the Medicaid Act or the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — abrogates the States’ sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state agency is immune from a § 1983 claim.

Sandoval v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHIC. STATE OF NY · filed 2004-07-27

Here, the DMV is an agency acting on behalf of the State of New York and is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment in the § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not override a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Romagnano v. Town of Colchester · filed 2004-08-13

The State of Connecticut has not consented to be sued, nor did Congress override Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting Section 1983.

Sovereign immunity bars monetary damages under Section 1983 against a state prison employee sued in her official capacity.

Smith v. Campbell · filed 2004-09-23

First, sovereign immunity barred Smith’s claim for monetary damages against Campbell in her official capacity.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 suit against a state defendant.

Green v. New York · filed 2004-12-06

The district court granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims, finding that no triable issues of fact had been raised as to claims against the individual defendants, and that the Eleventh Amendment barred suit against the State defendant. We find no error in the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims for substantially the reasons stated by the court below.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a state corrections department when sovereign immunity has not been waived or abrogated.

Richards v. Connecticut Department of Corrections · filed 2004-12-10

Further, Connecticut has not consented to this suit and Congress has not abrogated the state’s sovereign immunity. Richards’s suit is barred to the extent it seeks monetary damages from the DOC and, accordingly, the DOC is dismissed as a party to this case.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands without its consent.

Employment Consultants, Inc. v. O'Connor · filed 1986-05-05

It is concluded that the unique political status of the Commonwealth affords it sovereignty no less than any State or Territory of the United States and there simply is no consent to be sued for the claims alleged by plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. S 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity.

Smith v. Beebe · filed 2005-02-22

Although Congress may abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity, we are bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in Will that Congress did not do so when it enacted § 1983.

Section 1983 claims for damages or injunctive relief are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Greenlaw v. County of Santa Clara · filed 2005-03-07

The Eleventh Amendment precludes Greenlaw from recovering damages or injunctive relief against many of the defendants.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state or its agencies when sovereign immunity has not been waived.

Texas a & M University System v. Koseoglu · filed 2005-03-09

To date, the Legislature has not chosen to do so with respect to section 1983 claims. Accordingly, Texas A & M retains its immunity from Koseoglu’s section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide monetary damages against the Highway Commission because of sovereign immunity, but permits injunctive relief against it.

Catlett v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission · filed 1986-08-26

The question is whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes such damages under § 1983. The plaintiffs have presented no persuasive authority to challenge the defendants’ position that they are immune from monetary damages. However, this immunity does not extend to equitable or injunctive relief.

Section 1983 damages are unavailable against a state school board that retains sovereign immunity.

Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland, Inc. v. Montgomery County Public Schools · filed 2005-03-24

Although CEF disputes that MCPS is a state agency entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity, the Court is satisfied that extensive case law establishes just the contrary: MCPS is a state agency which enjoys sovereign immunity. ... The Court finds that MCPS has not waived its sovereign immunity. ... In consequence, CEF’s request for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will be denied.

Sovereign immunity bars § 1983 claims for monetary damages against prison officials sued in their official capacities.

Qualls v. Luttrell · filed 2005-03-30

As to the prisoner’s claim for monetary damages, sovereign immunity bars a § 1983 suit for monetary damages against a prison official in his official capacity.

Section 1983 claims against a county are not barred by state sovereign immunity.

Abusaid v. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2005-04-15

Accordingly, even if the district court had dismissed Abusaid’s federal claims on state sovereign immunity grounds as well as Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds, this dismissal would have been improper, since state sovereign immunity principles are no bar to § 1983 claims against a county.

Section 1983 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity from claims against it.

Fleming v. Giles · filed 2005-05-19

The district court properly dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs claims against the United States under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 on the ground of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

Stephens v. Ga. Dept. of Transportation · filed 2005-05-31

Congress has not abrogated immunity for claims brought pursuant to § 1983, the ADEA, or the ADA.

Section 1983 does not permit a plaintiff to sue a state directly in federal court; state employees sued in their official capacities share that immunity.

Higginbotham v. Ohio Department of Mental Health · filed 2005-09-22

It is well-settled law that plaintiffs cannot directly sue a state in federal court under either § 1981 or § 1983. ... Thus, ODMH and the individual defendants in their official capacities are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs § 1981 and § 1983 claims.

A state agency is immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court absent state consent or congressional abrogation.

Palma v. Workers Compensation Board · filed 2005-09-29

The Board, as an agency of the New York State government, is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. ... As a result, absent New York’s consent or Congressional abrogation, the Board is immune from suits that are brought in federal courts by New York citizens or by citizens of another state.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ramos v. Nebraska · filed 2005-10-17

Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or state agency without the state's consent.

Lindas v. Cady · filed 1987-12-30

Although sec. 46.017, Stats., provides "[DHSS] may sue and be sued,” this does not amount to a consent to be sued in sec. 1983 or other civil rights actions.

Section 1983 permits suits against persons acting under color of state or District of Columbia law, but sovereign immunity bars suits against federal entities absent an unequivocal waiver.

Settles v. United States Parole Commission · filed 2005-11-08

Therefore, because Settles has sued a defendant who is immune, the Commission is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not abrogate an arm of the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Joseph v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System · filed 2005-12-27

Because the Board is an “arm of the state” and Congress has not abrogated its immunity in § 1983 actions, this suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity from suit.

Enyeart v. Minnesota · filed 2006-01-06

Nor did Congress abrogate the state’s sovereign immunity in enacting Section 1983.

Federal law governs sovereign immunity from § 1983 liability, and counties generally are not immune as arms of the state.

Sartaine v. Pennington · filed 2006-01-24

However, state treatment of sovereign immunity has no bearing on the question of a party’s immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as only federal law is controlling upon that issue. ... Under federal law, counties are generally not considered arms of the state. ... Elliott Fiscal Court, therefore, is not protected from Plaintiffs’ § 1983 action by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on a state when an official-capacity claim is against the state and the state has not waived its immunity.

Carvel Bright Frank Ledford v. Harold McClure Individually and in His Official Capacity, a Clerk of the Superior Court o · filed 1989-01-17

The action against the defendant in his official capacity is clearly one against the state of North Carolina. The state has an Eleventh Amendment immunity from an action for damages, for the Congress has made no move to impose § 1983 liabilities upon states, and North Carolina has done nothing to waive its immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities are not barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Bacon v. Taylor · filed 2006-02-07

It is well-established that Section 1983 claims for compensatory and punitive monetary damages against a state or a state official in his or her official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. ... Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable in their individual capacities and does not seek compensation from the State. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs claim is not barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

A county cannot claim the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from a section 1983 suit.

Dallas County v. Gonzales · filed 2006-03-03

Although the Eleventh Amendment provides immunity to the State and its agencies from suits under section 1983, that immunity does not extend to the County.

Section 1983 claims against state officials alleging ongoing violations of federal law and seeking prospective relief are not barred by sovereign immunity; the immunity inquiry does not turn on the merits of the underlying claim.

League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Blackwell · filed 2006-03-15

That immunity does not, however, extend to claims brought against state officials in their official capacity alleging an ongoing failure to comply with federal law and seeking only prospective relief. ... The legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, and the potential for appeal on that issue, have no bearing with respect to the sovereign immunity issue.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity.

Willner v. Frey · filed 2006-03-15

Finally, while Congress has the power to abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity under the powers granted to it by the Civil War Amendments, it is established law that Congress did not exercise this power when it passed 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state agency and its employees in their official capacities.

McReynolds Ex Rel. DM v. ALA. DEPT. YOUTH SERV. · filed 2006-03-28

Consequently, the Plaintiff cannot maintain an action under § 1983 against the ADYS or any ADYS employee in his or her official capacity.

A civil rights action filed under § 1983 against a federal agency cannot proceed because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for constitutional claims.

Nwabueze v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · filed 1994-02-04

There is no waiver of constitutional claims against the United States, Lundstrum v. Lyng, 954 F.2d 1142, 1146 (6th Cir.1991) (per curiam), and a federal civil rights action can be brought only against individual federal officials, not against the United States.

Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity for a state or an arm of the state sued in federal court.

Pittman v. Cuyahoga Valley Career Center · filed 2006-08-25

As an arm of the State, CVCC is immune from claims brought by Pittman pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. CVCC’s immunity stems from the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. A plaintiff is precluded from directly suing a State in federal court on these claims.

Section 1983 allows federal suits against counties and their officials in their official capacities despite state-law sovereign immunity.

Wilson v. KY · filed 2006-10-04

While Elliott County may be immune from suit under Kentucky law, it is not thereby immune from federal suits.

County employees may not claim sovereign immunity against a Section 1983 claim.

Brown v. Jenne · filed 2006-10-25

The law is thus well settled that counties and thus their employees may not claim sovereign immunity to a section 1983 claim.