42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a detention center because the facility is not a person under the statute.

Matthis v. Somerset County Detention Center · filed 2019-10-08

As a preliminary matter, SCDC is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A jail or its medical department is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Ball v. Southwest Va Regional Jail-Abingdon · filed 2019-10-17

Thus, the only defendant Ball has identified cannot be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against persons, and a jail is not a person subject to suit under it.

Snipes v. Duffield Regional Jail · filed 2019-10-17

Snipes cannot prevail in any claim against the jail, because it is not a person subject to being sued under § 1983.

A county jail is not a person that can be sued under Section 1983.

Torrens v. Jacks · filed 2019-10-17

The Jail is not a proper defendant under Section 1983, which creates a cause of action against “[e]very person” who, acting under color of state law, abridges “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A jail is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

MOORE v. BERKS COUNTY JAIL SYSTEM · filed 2019-10-18

This § 1983 claim is dismissed as frivolous because a jail is not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or its agencies because they are not suable persons.

Young v. Campbell County States Attorney Office · filed 2019-10-21

Such entities are also not suable “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a jail because a jail is not a person under the statute.

WILLIAMS v. GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2019-10-22

The § 1983 claim against GWH must be dismissed since a jail is not a “person” under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a prison because a prison is not a person within the statute’s meaning.

SAUNDERS v. GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2019-10-24

However, a prison is not considered a “person” subject to suit within the meaning § 1983.

A local jail is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Craghead v. Amherst County Adult Detention Center · filed 2019-10-28

A local jail, however, cannot qualify as a person subject to being sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state correctional facility because it is not a “person” under the statute.

Dash v. Downstate Correctional Facility · filed 2019-10-29

Downstate Correctional Facility is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983’s person requirement excludes the state corrections division and its officers sued in their official capacities, while permitting claims against the officers in their personal capacities.

Salmons v. Western Regional Jail Authority · filed 2019-10-30

Neither the WVDCR nor Captains Aldridge and Savilla, acting in their official capacities, are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a municipal law enforcement department because the department is not a person under the statute.

Turner v. County of San Diego · filed 2019-10-31

The San Diego Sheriff’s Department is a department of the County of San Diego—but is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Pennsylvania judicial branch entities, including a county court’s Domestic Relations section, are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Gittens v. Kelly · filed 2019-11-04

Finally, we note that “all components of the judicial branch of the Pennsylvania government are state entities and thus are not persons for section 1983 purposes.” Callahan v. City of Philadelphia, 207 F.3d 668, 674 (3d Cir. 2000).

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state correctional center because it is not a person subject to suit.

Tribble v. Hamilton · filed 2019-11-04

Shawnee, which is a division of IDOC, is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits only against persons, and a county jail is not a person subject to suit.

COLEMAN v. CORIZON MEDICAL · filed 2019-11-05

A county jail, such as Union County Jail, is not a person amenable to suit under the statute.

Section 1983 does not allow compensatory damages against a state university or its chancellor sued in his official capacity because they are not persons under the statute.

L.M. v. Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville · filed 2019-11-06

Pembrook (sued in his official capacity) are not persons within the meaning of Section 1983, Count III is dismissed with prejudice.

A state agency is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Trower v. DOC Medical Treatment · filed 2019-11-07

In addition, dismissal is proper because DOC Medical is not a person for purposes of § 1983.

A state legislature is not a person subject to suit under §1983.

Smith v. United States Congress · filed 2019-11-14

Because the Wisconsin Legislature is comprised of “officials [of the state] acting in their official capacities,” id., it is not a person subject to suit under §1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a prison facility or prisoner transportation company as a “person” subject to suit.

Staunton v. Harrington · filed 2019-11-15

First, neither HCF nor Trans Core, the transportation company that operated the bus, are considered “persons” within the meaning of § 1983, and Staunton’s vague claims against them are DISMISSED with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county jail because a jail is not a person subject to suit.

Cason v. Hare · filed 2019-11-15

However, the Jail is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against municipal police departments because they are not persons subject to suit under the statute.

Davis v. San Diego Police Department · filed 2019-11-18

Departments of municipal entities are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983; therefore, a local law enforcement department (like the SDPD) is not a proper party.

A correctional institution’s medical department is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Salois v. SCI Rockview Medical Department · filed 2019-11-27

and it being well-settled that a department within a correctional institution, such as the Medical Department at SCI-Rockview, does not qualify as a person within the meaning of § 1983, see, e.g., Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (holding that the New Jersey Prison Medical Department is a state agency that cannot be sued under § 1983 because it is not a person) and, thus, the SCI-Rockview Medical Department is not a suitable entity for a § 1983 claim and is entitled to dismissal from this action, ... it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The motion (Doc. 4) to dismiss is GRANTED.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county prosecutor's office acting as a state law enforcement agency because it is not a person subject to suit.

VALDEZ v. CHOE · filed 2019-12-03

A county prosecutor's office is a state agency for § 1983 purposes, and is not a person amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state government agency because the agency is not a person under the statute.

Mohammad v. Lashbrook · filed 2019-12-05

However, IDOC is a state government agency and is not a person subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state probation and parole departments because they are not persons subject to suit.

REPOTSKI v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT · filed 2019-12-05

As previously explained, the Montgomery County Probation and Parole Department and Chester County Adult Probation and Parole Department and Pretrial Services are not “persons” for purposes of § 1983 and, as arms of the Commonwealth, are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against California school districts because they are arms of the state and are not persons under the statute.

Adams v. Jefferson Union High School District · filed 2019-12-12

School districts in California are “arms of the State” for Eleventh Amendment purposes, and are therefore not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit this suit against the United States or the North Carolina Department of Public Safety because neither is a person subject to suit under the section.

Wright v. United States · filed 2019-12-13

Neither the United States or NCDPS is a “person” against whom this § 1983 suit can proceed and Plaintiff’s claims against them are barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county detention center because it is not a person subject to suit.

Austin v. Swain County Detention Center · filed 2019-12-13

The Swain County Detention Center is not a person under § 1983 and the claims against it will be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states or their agencies because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Crawford v. Abdleghafar · filed 2019-12-19

As to Defendant North Carolina Department of Public Safety, neither the State of North Carolina nor its agencies constitute “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a state department of corrections to be sued because it is not a person under the statute.

Wyres v. Zhang · filed 2019-12-30

The CDCR is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department because it is not a person subject to suit.

Rogers v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department · filed 2019-12-30

Next, Defendant Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits claims only against defendants who qualify as “persons”; county solicitor’s and public defender’s offices do not qualify.

Simpson v. Florence County Complex Solicitor's Office · filed 2019-12-30

A defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a “person” under the statute.

A state and a police department are not “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983 in their official capacities.

David v. Savage · filed 2020-01-02

The R. & R. accurately indicates that Plaintiff’s claims against the Edmond Police Department and the State of Oklahoma are subject to dismissal because neither entity is a “person” as required for a § 1983 suit to proceed against it in its official capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a county jail because a jail is not a person subject to liability under the section.

Baker v. Monroe County Jail · filed 2020-01-02

First, a jail is not a “person” subject to liability under § 1983, and therefore, the Monroe County Jail will be DISMISSED.

State courts are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Robinson v. The Lancaster County Court · filed 2020-01-03

Here, the court dismissed Robinson’s § 1983 Complaint because his claims against the state court Defendants were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and the state court Defendants are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Municipal departments, including sheriff’s departments, are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

(PC) Luther v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation · filed 2020-01-06

Departments of municipal entities are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983; therefore, a local law enforcement agency, like the SDSD, are not proper parties.

Prison and jail facilities are not persons subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

Husman (ID 75744) v. Brecken · filed 2020-01-08

The Court also found that Plaintiff’s claims against EDCF are subject to dismissal because prison and jail facilities are not proper defendants because none is a “person” subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a jail because a jail is not a person under the statute.

Matney v. Haysi Regional Jail · filed 2020-01-13

A jail is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a county jail administration because it is not a person subject to suit.

Harris v. Jester · filed 2020-01-13

Because the Milwaukee County Jail administration is not a “person” subject to suit under §1983, the court must dismiss it as a defendant.

Section 1983 permits suit against persons, but a correctional facility is not a person within the statute’s meaning.

Garza-Ovalle v. Detention Officer Armstrong · filed 2020-01-15

Conduct amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be conduct undertaken by a person. CDF is not a person within the meaning of the statute. Therefore, plaintiff’s claims against CDF cannot stand.

A police department is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Pittman v. York · filed 2020-01-16

The Chesapeake Police Department is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a jail because a jail is not a person under the statute.

BLEH v. GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2020-01-22

Thus, the § 1983 claim against GWH is dismissed because a jail is not a “person” under Section 1983.

A detention facility is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Hines v. Chesapeake Detention Facility · filed 2020-01-23

CDF correctly notes that is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A jail facility is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Greene v. Correct Care Solutions · filed 2020-01-29

It is well settled that jail facilities (such as CCDC) are not “persons” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against the Ann Klein Forensic Center because it is not a person under the statute.

RUIBAL v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC. · filed 2020-02-10

However, AKFC is not a “person” amenable to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits claims only against persons; a prison medical department is not a person under the section.

PAULSON v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2020-02-11

The “GEO Medical Department” must also be dismissed with prejudice since it too is not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a criminal justice center because it is not a person.

Taylor v. District Attorney Philadelphia · filed 2020-02-14

The CJC is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

A state corrections department is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Leyba, Jr. v. State of New Mexico Department of Corrections · filed 2020-02-14

As a state agency, the “New Mexico Department of Corrections [NMDOC] is not a ‘person’ subject to suit under § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state agencies or their units because they are not persons under the statute.

Lindsay v. University of Connecticut Health Center · filed 2020-02-18

Units of those entities, the Medical Department at Corrigan and the University of Connecticut Health Center, also are not persons within the meaning of section 1983.

A state department of correction is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Montgomery v. Officer Lockwood · filed 2020-02-18

In addition, dismissal is proper because the DOC is not a person for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because a state agency is not a person under the section.

TALLEY v. IONATA · filed 2020-02-19

The DOC, as a state agency, is not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a county jail or county corrections department because neither is a person under the statute.

ECHEVARRIA v. ESSEX COUNTY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-02-20

Neither a county jail nor a county department such as the Essex County Department of Corrections are “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit only against a person; a K-9 dog and a county detention center are not persons subject to suit.

Cutshall v. Little · filed 2020-02-20

At the outset, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot sustain a claim against K-9 dog, Sig, or the Greene County Detention Center, as neither are considered a “person” for purposes of a § 1983 suit.

A work camp is not a person subject to liability under § 1983.

Chambers v. Clark · filed 2020-03-02

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the Johnson City Work Camp is not a proper Defendant, as a work camp is not a “person” subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state corrections department or state prison because neither is a person subject to suit.

Caudle v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation · filed 2020-03-10

Neither the CDCR nor RJD are “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

A state department is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Smythe v. Quebedeaux · filed 2020-03-13

In Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, the Supreme Court held that neither a state nor state officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. ... For the reasons set forth above, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the DPSC.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against county courts because they are not persons subject to suit.

Mercado v. Orange County Courts · filed 2020-03-23

In the January 28, 2020 order to amend, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims arising out of his ongoing criminal proceedings for the following reasons: the Orange County courts are not a “person” who can be sued under § 1983; the judge, DA, and assistant DAs are immune from suit; and the Legal Aid Society does not qualify as a state actor for purposes of § 1983 liability. ... The amended complaints are dismissed for the same reasons set forth in the January 28, 2020 order to amend.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a prison or jail facility because the facility is not a person under the statute.

Ortberg v. Groves · filed 2020-03-24

Prison and jail facilities are not proper defendants because none is a “person” subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state department of corrections because the department is not a person under the statute.

HARRIS v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-03-25

Likewise, while Defendant DOC does not move to dismiss this claim as it applies to it, the court will dismiss this claim with prejudice as applied to DOC, as the DOC is not a “person” as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Municipal departments, including a county sheriff’s office, are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Upton v. County of El Dorado · filed 2020-04-01

Although municipalities, such as cities and counties, are amenable to suit under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), departments of municipal entities are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983; therefore, the Sheriff’s Office—a local law enforcement department—is not a proper party.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a municipal department because the department is not a person under the statute.

Dunsmore v. State of California · filed 2020-04-06

Departments of municipal entities are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983; therefore, a local law enforcement agency, like the SDSD, are not proper parties.

A state agency is not a person subject to liability under Section 1983.

Weatherwax v. Barone · filed 2020-04-06

Accordingly, the Department of Correction is not a person subject to liability under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a detention center because it is not a person under the statute.

Cubit v. Curry County Detention Center · filed 2020-04-06

First, CCDC is the only named defendant, and detention centers are not a ‘persons’ subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a prison library because it is not a suable entity.

Dunn v. NENMDF · filed 2020-04-10

A prison facility, including its library, is not a suable entity under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation because it is not a person subject to suit.

Garrett v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2020-04-14

However, as this Court and its sister courts have previously held, the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation is not a proper defendant because it is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a state as a person subject to suit.

Cline v. State of Utah · filed 2020-04-16

Here, the State of Utah is not a person for purposes of Section 1983 and thus the Clines’ claims against the State of Utah are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Ray v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2020-04-16

Further, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983, Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), and the Eleventh Amendment bars it from suit.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a prison because a prison is not a person under the statute.

HUYSERS v.GROSSMAN · filed 2020-04-16

A prison is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state department of corrections because it is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

Ferri v. New Mexico Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-22

Defendant NMDOC enacted the offending Matrix policy, but “[NMDOC] is not a ‘person’ subject to suit under § 1983.” Blackburn v. Department of Corrections, 172 F.3d 62, 63 (10th Cir. 1999).

Section 1983 allows suit against persons, but inanimate facilities and collective terms such as “staff” or “agency” do not qualify as persons.

Smith v. HRRJ · filed 2020-04-30

Neither “inanimate objects such as buildings, facilities, and grounds” nor collective terms such as “staff” or “agency” qualify as persons amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or its department of correction because neither is a person subject to suit.

Lenti v. Connecticut · filed 2020-04-30

Neither the State of Connecticut nor the DOC is a “person” subject to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state corrections departments or prisons because they are not persons subject to suit.

Hammond v. Illinois Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-30

As previously noted, IDOC and Western are not “persons” amendable to suit under section 1983 and they are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against the CDCR, RJD, or RJD departments because they are not persons subject to suit.

Williams v. Hampton · filed 2020-05-05

The CDCR, RJD, and departments of RJD are not “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983 and are entitled to immunity from suit for monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against the State of Illinois or the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois because they are not persons under the statute.

Eastridge v. Illinois · filed 2020-05-05

Plaintiff is placed on notice that the State of Illinois and the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois are not “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 allows suit against a person acting under color of state law; a drug task force is not a person subject to suit.

Tolley v. Caldwell · filed 2020-05-14

The Rockbridge Regional Drug Task Force is not a person and is therefore not subject to suit.

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

O'Neal v. Missouri State Department of Corrections · filed 2020-05-26

Neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a jail to be sued because a jail is not a person subject to suit.

Brooks v. Kumer · filed 2020-05-29

A jail is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 or a legal entity, and Brooks cannot maintain this action against the defendant jail.

Section 1983 does not allow a detention center to be sued because it is not a person subject to suit.

Robles v. Curry County Detention Center · filed 2020-05-29

As a detention center, CCDC is not a ‘person’ subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a detention center because it is not a person subject to suit.

Wilson v. Cleveland County Detention Center · filed 2020-06-08

Defendant Cleveland Count Detention Center is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit against persons, and a county prison is not a person subject to suit.

Williams v. Dauphin County Prison · filed 2020-06-18

DCP is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state correctional center because it is not a person under the statute.

Dickerson v. Cecil · filed 2020-06-26

Second, Lawrence Correctional Center, a state entity, is not a proper party because it is not a “person” amendable to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary claims against state prisons or state departments of corrections because they are not persons subject to suit under the statute.

JACKSON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-06-29

The NSP and the DOC are not “persons” subject to § 1983 monetary liability.

A detention center is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Ornelas v. Alaniz · filed 2020-07-13

As a detention center, CCDC is not a ‘person’ subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state prison medical department because it is not a person under the statute.

AMIN v. SCI-PHOENIX MEDICAL DEPT. · filed 2020-07-13

Amin named the “SCI-Phoenix Medical Department” as a Defendant here, but the “SCI- Phoenix Medical Department” is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a correctional institution because it is not a person under the statute.

Milton v. W.C.I. · filed 2020-07-14

WCI is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a prison itself because a prison is not a person subject to suit.

Dawson v. Johnson · filed 2020-07-17

Nor can Dawson sue the MSDF itself because the prison is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a correctional facility that is merely a building because it is not a person.

Hailey v. Singleton · filed 2020-07-17

However, the South Central Correctional Facility is a building and not a “person” who can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or its agencies because they are not persons subject to suit under the statute.

Hayes v. D.P.S, NC Corr · filed 2020-07-20

Neither the State of North Carolina nor its agencies constitute “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

A state prison is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Riley v. Diaz · filed 2020-07-23

A state prison, however, is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state or its agencies because they are not persons under the statute.

Cobbs v. Ellington · filed 2020-07-28

Finally, as to Defendant NCDPS, neither the State of North Carolina nor its agencies constitute “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state corrections department or one of its institutions because neither is a person under the statute.

Neibauer v. Lebouton · filed 2020-07-29

Because neither it nor the Department of Corrections is a “person” subject to suit under §1983, the court will dismiss them as defendants.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state department of corrections because it is not a person under the statute.

Lanza v. Moclock · filed 2020-08-07

The Department of Corrections is not a “person,” who may be subjected to a lawsuit under § 1983 and will be dismissed as a defendant in this action.

Section 1983 does not treat a state or a state official sued in an official capacity for damages as a person subject to suit.

Jefferson v. Lee · filed 2020-08-10

Thus, Plaintiff's claims against the State of Tennessee and Governor Bill Lee in his official capacity are not alleged against “persons” within the terms of Section 1983, and the claims against these Defendants for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state agencies or their subdivisions because they are not persons under the statute.

Mayo v. Doe · filed 2020-08-17

As state agencies or subdivisions thereof, the Statewide Narcotics Task Force Southeastern and Troop D are not persons within the meaning of section 1983.

Courts and a police department are not “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Neal v. Arkansas Supreme Court · filed 2020-08-19

The following Defendants are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983: the Arkansas Supreme Court; the Oswego County Family Court, the Circuit Courts of Sharp, Lawrence, Randolph, and Jackson Counties, and the Hardy Police Department.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county detention center because it is not a person subject to suit.

Golden v. Curry County Adult Detention Center · filed 2020-08-26

The remaining Defendant, CCDC, is not a ‘person’ subject to suit under § 1983.

A state and its department of corrections are not persons amenable to suit under § 1983, even when a plaintiff alleges a policy or custom.

PAGLIAROLI v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-08-27

The State of New Jersey and NJDOC are not local government units, and, unlike local governments entities, these State Defendants are not “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state prison building because it is not a person under the statute.

White v. Northeast Correctional Complex · filed 2020-08-27

The Court finds that NECX, a state prison within the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”), is not subject to suit under § 1983, as a building is not a “person” under the law.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a county jail because a jail is not a person subject to suit.

Stanford v. Cuyahoga County Jail · filed 2020-08-28

County jails are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a municipal department because it is not a person under the statute.

Mitchell v. Chula Vista Parole · filed 2020-08-31

The CVP is a law enforcement agency or department of the City of Chula Vista, but it is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Indiana Family and Social Services Administration Jennifer Walthall, in Individual Capacity as Secretary of Indiana Fami · filed 2020-09-03

We conclude ... it was error for the court to deny the Appellants’ motion to dismiss Anderson’s complaint for damages setting out a § 1983 action because such action may not be maintained against the FSSA, the Bartholomew County Division of Family Resources, or Walthall in her official capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state prison or prison staff named collectively because they are not persons subject to suit.

Maldonado v. Cuyahoga County Jail and Kitchen Staff Ect · filed 2020-09-08

A state prison and prison “staff,” as the plaintiff sues here, are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a Kansas county sheriff’s office because it lacks the capacity to sue or be sued and is therefore not a “person” under the section.

Walker v. Douglas County Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-09-14

Therefore, this court and others have held that it is not a “person” which may be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state prison because the prison is not a person under the statute.

PARIS v. LAMAS · filed 2020-09-14

For that matter, SCI-Chester is not a “person” susceptible to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county jail because the jail is not a person amenable to suit.

SCHWENK v. CORRECTIONS OFFICER LOPEZ · filed 2020-09-21

A county correctional facility is not a “person” amenable to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a police or sheriff’s department because the department is not a person under the statute.

Kumssa v. Davidson County Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-09-22

With regard to the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office, a police or sheriff’s department is not a “person” who can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state agency or state officials in their official capacities because they are not persons subject to suit.

JAMES v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES · filed 2020-09-28

Here, both the DOH and the individual defendants in their official capacities are not subject to liability under the Constitutional Claims because none are “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a youth detention center that is neither a separate legal entity nor a person subject to suit.

Lester v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government · filed 2020-09-29

As a result, LMYDC is neither a separate legal entity nor a “person” who can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a jail because a jail is not a person subject to suit.

Mathews v. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail · filed 2020-09-30

As the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail-Haysi is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983, Mathews cannot maintain this action against the defendant jail.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a state corrections department or prison because neither is a person under the statute.

Herring v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-10-07

She advised Plaintiff that PREA provides no private cause of action; she set forth the elements that Plaintiff must allege to state a failure to protect claim; and she explained that liability for monetary damages under section 1983 does not extend to either SCDC or TCI because they are not considered “persons.” ECF No. 7. ... The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are subject to summary dismissal and incorporates the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 10, herein by reference.

Section 1983 permits suit against a person acting under color of state law, but a sheriff’s department or jail is not a person subject to suit.

Juarez v. Kenosha County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-10-08

Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue a “person” who violates his constitutional rights under color of state law. Neither a sheriff’s department nor a jail is a “person.” ... Because the plaintiff has sued defendants who are not subject to suit under §1983, the court must dismiss the complaint against those defendants.

A jail or detention center is not a person subject to suit under §1983; official-capacity claims against its officials are treated as claims against the county.

Wade v. Kenosha County · filed 2020-10-20

Because neither the jail nor KCDC are “persons” subject to suit under §1983, the court construes the plaintiff’s official-capacity claims as claims against Kenosha County.

Section 1983 does not permit suits for money damages against a county jail, a state, or a federal agency because they are not persons subject to suit.

Oliver v. Marcowitz · filed 2020-10-21

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the St. Clair County Jail, the State of Illinois, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons are not persons subject to suit for money damages.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against state prisons or their health care units because they are not persons subject to suit.

Mrdjenovich v. Menard Correctional Center · filed 2020-10-22

Menard Correctional Center and Menard Health Care Unit are not persons subject to suit for money damages under section 1983 and will, therefore, be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state because a state is not a “person” under the section.

SANABRIA v. ST. LUKES HOSPITAL (SACRED HEART CAMPUS) · filed 2020-10-26

Additionally, the Commonwealth is not considered a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state court because a court is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

MARTIN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2020-10-27

Plaintiff also fails to state a claim against the New Jersey Appellate Division, because the Appellate Division is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a sheriff’s department because it is not a person subject to suit.

Culbertson v. Sullivan County Sheriff's Dept · filed 2020-10-29

Indeed, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the Sullivan County Sheriff’s office fail because a sheriff’s department is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

A county jail is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Holton v. Tharp · filed 2020-10-30

The Madison County City Jail is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

Tafoya v. Limon Correction Facility · filed 2020-11-09

As the institutional Defendants and the individual Defendants in their official capacities are not “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983, Plaintiff’s claim against them fails.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state prison medical departments because they are not persons subject to suit under the statute.

Brandon v. HDSP Medical Unit · filed 2020-11-20

The H.D.S.P. Medical Unit and the S.D.C.C. Medical Unit are not subject to suit for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A detention center and its medical department are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

McDaniels v. J Reuben Long Detention Center · filed 2020-11-30

The Magistrate Judge found that neither named defendant is subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because neither defendant is a “person” acting under color of state law as required to have a viable § 1983 claim. ... After careful review of the Report and the objections, and for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report, ECF No. 14, is ACCEPTED.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a prison facility that is a building or collection of buildings rather than a person or legal entity.

Arther v. Corizon Health Incorporated · filed 2020-12-03

However, ASPC-Florence is a building or collection of buildings, not a person or legally created entity capable of being sued. Thus, the Court will dismiss Defendant ASPC-Florence.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a prison clinical pharmacy because it is not a person subject to suit.

Greer v. The Tennessee Department of Correction · filed 2020-12-03

The Bledsoe Clinical Pharmacy, however, is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit only against a person; a detention center is not a person within the statute.

Morris, Jr. v. Baltimore County Detention Center · filed 2020-12-07

Conduct amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be conduct undertaken by a person, and BCDC is not a person within the meaning of the statute.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state corrections department that is an arm of the state because it is not a “person” under the statute.

Langford v. Dzurenda · filed 2020-12-17

The Court dismisses, with prejudice, the § 1983 claim alleging liability by the NDOC because the NDOC is an arm of the State of Nevada and is not a “person” subject ... to suit for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a Maryland county board of education because the board is not a person under the statute.

Agbara v. Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCPS) · filed 2020-12-18

Because the Board does not qualify as a “per- son” under § 1983, Mr. Agbara’s § 1983 claims against the Board are not viable and will be dis- missed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

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

GROSS-QUATRONE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2020-12-18

Neither “states, nor their departments and agencies, nor state officials sued in their official capacities for money damages are ‘persons’ within the meaning of § 1983.” Onyiuke v. New Jersey, 242 F. App’x 794 (3d Cir. 2007) (granting motion to dismiss); see also Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ due process claims against the State and against Judge Grant in his official capacity must be dismissed with prejudice.

State corrections departments and their prisons are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Brown v. Anyanaso · filed 2020-12-21

In addition, dismissal is proper because neither the DOC nor the JTVCC are persons for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against prison facilities or state agencies because they are not persons subject to suit.

Streu v. Charles Egeler Reception & Guidance Center · filed 2021-01-05

It is well-settled that prison facilities are not person or legal entities subject to suit under § 1983. ... It is equally well-settled that governmental departments and agencies, such as the MDOC, are not persons or legal entities subject to suit under 1983.

A jail is not a person subject to liability under § 1983.

Jones v. Sullivan Co. Jail · filed 2021-01-05

However, a jail is not a “person” subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state corrections department or its prison because neither is a person under the statute.

Engel v. ERDCC · filed 2021-01-08

Plaintiff’s complaint is legally frivolous because the defendant entities cannot be sued under § 1983 for two reasons: (1) ERDCC and MODOC are not “persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (2) plaintiff’s claim against ERDCC and MODOC are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state court, as a division of the state, is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

HINES v. FAYETTE SUPERIOR COURT · filed 2021-01-12

But Mr. Hines has not pleaded facts that could support a claim because Defendant Fayette County Superior Court, as a division of the State of Indiana, is not a "person" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a detention center because it is not a person.

Harris v. B.C.D.C. · filed 2021-01-12

As a preliminary matter, BCDC is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit constitutional claims against Maryland’s OAG or DPSCS because neither is a person subject to suit.

Footes v. Neverdon · filed 2021-01-13

The Court begins by noting, more fundamentally, that neither OAG or DPSCS is a “person” subject to suit for constitutional violations brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against detention facilities or security and medical staff groups that lack separate legal existence.

Brown v. Knox County Sheriff's Office Detention Facilities · filed 2021-01-15

First, the Knox County Sheriff’s Office detention facilities, security staff, and mental and medical staff are not suable entities under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections because it is not a person under the statute.

Betts v. Brennan · filed 2021-01-22

Finally, Defendants correctly point out that Plaintiff cannot succeed on his § 1983 claim against DPSC because DPSC is not a “person” within the meaning of that statute.

A state court is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Hawkins v. Court of Common Pleas · filed 2021-01-27

The Anderson County Court of Common Pleas is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a detention center because it is not a person under the statute.

Petrovia v. Prime Care Medical Inc · filed 2021-01-29

As a preliminary matter, BCDC is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

State corrections departments and detention centers are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Barnes v. New Mexico District Court · filed 2021-01-29

It is well settled that NMDOC and detention centers such as ECDC are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Pennsylvania and its agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

ELANSARI v. RAGAZZO · filed 2021-01-29

Additionally, the Commonwealth and its agencies are not considered “persons” for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a detention center because it is not a person under the statute.

Gootee v. Wicomico County Detention Center · filed 2021-02-01

As a preliminary matter, WCDC is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A correctional center is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Taylor v. Potosi Correctional Center · filed 2021-02-02

First, the PCC is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a sheriff’s department because the department is not a person under the statute.

Conway v. San Diego Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-02-03

The SDSO is a law enforcement agency or department of the County of San Diego, but it is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a jail or its medical unit because they are not persons subject to suit.

Greer v. Madison County Jail · filed 2021-02-05

The “Medical Unit” and “Jail” are not “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency because the agency is not a person under the statute.

Lillard v. MO DOC · filed 2021-02-05

MODOC is a state agency, and is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county jail or its staff as a group because neither is a person subject to suit.

Markland v. City of Elizabethton TN · filed 2021-02-10

However, as the Court noted in its previous order, neither the Carter County Jail nor its Jail Staff is a person that may be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a State, its agencies, or a state official acting in an official capacity because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Strong v. State of Washington · filed 2021-02-11

Here, Defendants State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Airway Heights Corrections Center, and Superintendent Key acting in his official capacity are State actors and are therefore not “persons” susceptible to suit under § 1983.

A state correctional health care agency is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Williams v. Newsom · filed 2021-02-11

The CCHCS is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983 and is entitled to immunity from suit for monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment.

The New Jersey State Parole Board is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

CAMILO v. LEOPIZZI · filed 2021-02-16

Plaintiff’s claims against the New Jersey State Parole Board brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fail because that entity is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a district attorney’s office because the office is not a person subject to suit.

HARRIS v. CASHMAN · filed 2021-02-16

However, the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office is not a “person” subject to suit pursuant to Section 1983.