42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Stringfield v. Graham · filed 2007-01-08

We reverse the district court’s dismissal of Stringfield’s claims for prospective injunctive relief against Graham in Graham’s official capacity on sovereign immunity grounds, and remand for further proceedings.

Federal sovereign immunity law governs sovereign immunity defenses to § 1983 claims in state court.

Sullins v. Rodriguez · filed 2007-01-30

We conclude, to the contrary, that when sovereign immunity is claimed as a defense to a cause of action pursuant to § 1983, federal sovereign immunity jurisprudence preempts analysis under state law.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity; a state entity remains immune from suit under it absent a waiver.

Goonewardena v. New York · filed 2007-02-14

The State of New York has not waived its sovereign immunity in regard to section 1983 actions nor has its sovereign immunity been abrogated. I therefore conclude that plaintiffs section 1983 claims against CUNY asserting violations of his due process and equal protection rights are dismissed.

Section 1983 suits against state universities are barred by sovereign immunity unless the state consents or Congress abrogates that immunity.

Giles v. University of Toledo · filed 2007-03-14

State universities are “arms of the State” and are immune from Section 1983 suits unless the State consents to the suit, or Congress abrogates the States’ sovereign immunity as they have for Title VII claims.

State tax agencies are immune from Section 1983 claims in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment absent waiver, consent, or congressional abrogation.

Miller v. State of New York Div. of Tax Appeals · filed 2007-03-15

The Department of Taxation is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... The Division of Tax Appeals is a division of the Department of Taxation. Therefore, Plaintiffs claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, absent a waiver of immunity, consent to suit by the state, or abrogation of the immunity by Congress.

Section 1983 does not permit prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against the United States Parole Commission because it retains federal sovereign immunity.

Fletcher v. District of Columbia · filed 2007-03-26

Section 1983 does not provide jurisdiction for plaintiffs prospective injunctive and declaratory relief claims against the Commission.

A State or its agencies cannot be named as defendants in a federal § 1983 suit without the State’s consent.

Bailey v. Silberman · filed 2007-04-02

Neither a State nor its agencies may be sued as a named defendant in federal court absent the State’s consent.

Section 1983 claims against a federal agency and federal officials sued in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity absent a waiver.

Cuevas v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2007-05-14

Since the government has not waived its sovereign immunity, the district court’s dismissal of Cuevas’ claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 was proper.

Kansas’s county-sheriff liability statute does not waive sovereign immunity from § 1983 prisoner claims for money damages in federal court.

Hunter v. Young · filed 2007-06-12

This general language cannot be reasonably construed as a waiver of Kansas’s immunity against § 1983 prisoner claims in the federal courts. Because M r. Hunter’s requested relief is for only monetary damages, sovereign immunity bars his claim against Sgt. Young in his official capacity.

Section 1983 claims for prospective injunctive relief may proceed against state officials in their official capacities, but the Eleventh Amendment bars such claims against states and state agencies.

Monroe v. Arkansas State University · filed 2007-07-26

While under the doctrine set forth in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), state officials may be sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief without violating the Eleventh Amendment, the same doctrine does not extend to states or state agencies.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by sovereign immunity unless the state waives that immunity.

in the Interest of T.R.F., a Child · filed 2007-08-15

Accordingly, Texas A&M retains its immunity from Koseoglu’s section 1983 claim.

The State and officials sued in their official capacities are immune from money damages under Section 1983 unless that immunity is waived.

Texas a & M University System v. Koseoglu · filed 2007-09-07

But the court of appeals correctly held that the State and its officials sued in their official capacities are immune from money damages sought in a Section 1983 claim unless they waive their immunity. 167 S.W.3d at 380 (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of St. Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989)).

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities, but sovereign immunity bars official-capacity damages and claims for back pay from the state.

Gunasekera v. Irwin · filed 2007-09-26

In sum, sovereign immunity bars all but Plaintiffs claim for prospective equitable relief against Defendants in their official capacities and Plaintiffs § 1983 claims for money damages against Defendants in the individual capacities, excluding back pay and fringe benefits.

Section 1983 does not waive sovereign immunity or permit damages actions directly against states.

Dye v. United States · filed 2007-09-27

In addition, Sections 1983 and 1985(3) do not abrogate state sovereign immunity and permit damages actions directly against states.

Section 1983 does not waive federal sovereign immunity.

Browne v. Gossett · filed 2007-12-13

Therefore, § 1983 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

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

Allen v. Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts · filed 2008-03-17

Although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, through which Allen ostensibly proceeds.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state agency that has not waived immunity cannot be sued under it.

Hunt v. Colorado Department of Corrections · filed 2008-03-28

But Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity through Section 1983, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979), and the CDOC is an agency of the State of Colorado that has not expressly waived its sovereign immunity.

States are immune from monetary damages under § 1983 pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

Crosby v. State · filed 1984-06-28

The Federal action out of which this claim arose was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988, and 28 U.S.C. sec. 1961, and was against directors of two State agencies and not the State itself. The various states of this country are immune from liability for monetary damages under those statutes pursuant to the eleventh amendment of the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state university board when sovereign immunity has neither been abrogated nor waived.

Rittenhouse v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University · filed 2008-05-28

In light of the absence of Congressional abrogation of immunity, and since there is no evidence of consent in this case, the Board is immune from a suit for damages under both § 1981 and § 1983.

A § 1983 suit against a state official in an official capacity cannot use the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity when it implicates special state sovereignty interests.

Jacobson v. Bruning · filed 2008-06-16

Although Jacobson argues on appeal his complaint fell within the Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), exception to sovereign immunity, we conclude the exception did not apply because Jacobson’s suit essentially questioned the state’s ownership in and authority to regulate groundwater, and thus implicated special sovereignty interests.

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

Hurst v. City of Rehoboth Beach · filed 2008-07-30

Although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 18 U.S.C. § 242, the federal laws under which Hurst proceeded. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979).

Section 1983 suits against states and their agencies are barred by sovereign immunity unless that immunity is waived.

Kee v. Mersch · filed 2008-10-23

The State of Nevada and TSA enjoy sovereign immunity from suits brought under § 1983, and there is no indication in the record that sovereign immunity was waived.

In a § 1983 suit seeking prospective relief, a governor’s general authority as head of the executive branch does not alone make the governor a proper defendant under Ex parte Young.

D.G. Ex Rel. Stricklin v. Henry · filed 2008-12-11

To accept plaintiffs’ view that the Governor is a proper defendant here simply because he is the head of the executive branch of Oklahoma would abrogate the Eleventh Amendment bar to suits against states.

A § 1983 complaint against a state parole board is barred by sovereign immunity.

Jackson v. Missouri Board of Probation · filed 2009-01-09

Upon de novo review, see Union Elec. Co. v. Mo. Dept. of Conservation, 366 F.3d 655, 657 (8th Cir. 2004), we agree with the district court that Jackson’s complaint was barred by sovereign immunity, see Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001).

Section 1983 claims against a state corrections department and officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity, except to the extent they seek prospective injunctive relief.

Wagner v. Connecticut Dep't. of Correction · filed 2009-02-12

To the extent that Wagner brings claims pursuant to Section 1983 for violations of her rights to Equal Protection and Due Process, they are also barred by the Eleventh Amendment as to the DOC and as to the individual defendants in their official capacities, except to the extent she seeks prospective injunctive relief.

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

Rose v. United States of America · filed 2009-02-13

Although several of the asserted grounds for dismissal would serve as well,2 one clear reason why the federal defendants must be dismissed from this suit is that the United States has ... not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to section 1983.

A state and its agency are immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court absent the state's consent.

Walter v. Boehm · filed 2009-02-17

Finally, we agree that dismissal of plaintiffs claims against the OIG and the State of New York was appropriate, as each is immune from suit in federal court absent the State’s consent.

Section 1983 claims for money damages against state prison officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity absent the state's consent.

Garner v. Morales · filed 2009-03-06

Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the judgment concluding that Garner is barred from seeking money damages from the defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against the United States because sovereign immunity bars it.

Fluellen v. United States Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration · filed 1993-03-11

The United States is not subject to suit under § 1983 because of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 incorporates established common-law immunities when their rationale fits the Civil Rights Act.

Lombardi v. Borges, No. 113237 (May 6, 1993) · filed 1993-05-06

Rather, the plaintiff argues that his claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 abrogate the common law. But this is simply not correct. Where the immunity claimed by the defendant was well established at common law at the time Section 1983 was enacted, and where its rationale was compatible with the purposes of the Civil Rights Act, the United States Supreme Court has construed the statute to incorporate that immunity.

A § 1983 claim for money damages against a state department acting as an arm of the state is barred by sovereign immunity.

Grall v. Bugher · filed 1993-12-16

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims on sovereign immunity grounds.

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

Johnson v. Cushing · filed 1980-01-17

Based on the recent holding in Quern, supra, this Court finds that § 1983 does not abrogate states’ immunity from suit in federal court.

Section 1983 authorizes Medicaid Act claims, and the court held that state immunity does not bar those claims.

Hunter v. Chiles · filed 1996-10-24

Therefore, Congress has both the power to authorize the § 1983 Medicaid Act claims and has abrogated the state’s immunity from these claims.

Section 1983 does not waive a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, so a state university treated as the state cannot be sued under it.

Haley v. Virginia Commonwealth University · filed 1996-12-19

He cites no jurisdictional basis for these claims other than 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but it is presumed that the basis is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Because, as noted above, suing VCU is the functional and legal equivalent of suing the state, VCU’s motion to dismiss must also be granted as to Haley’s claim for alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.

The United States and Congress are immune from a § 1983 suit challenging the enactment of a federal law.

McLean v. United States · filed 2009-05-21

McLean has sued the United States and the United States Congress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that AEDPA’s statute of limitations provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), is a retroactive law ... and is thus unconstitutional. As the district court correctly concluded, the United States and its Congress are immune from suit in this instance.

Section 1983 does not overcome a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity when an official-capacity suit is the functional equivalent of a quiet title action.

Anderson-Tully Co. v. McDaniel · filed 2009-07-07

The suit against McDaniel in his official capacity as Arkansas’s Attorney General is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not overcome a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity when a suit against a state official is the functional equivalent of a quiet title action, even if it seeks injunctive relief.

Anderson-Tully Company v. McDaniel · filed 2009-07-07

In its federal suit, ATCO alleged a deprivation of its federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought a declaration that the Arkansas Supreme Court's adoption of the recreational use doctrine of navigability in McIlroy violated the federal constitution. ... The suit against McDaniel in his official capacity as Arkansas's Attorney General is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Smith v. Krieger · filed 2009-08-03

As noted in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, neither the jurisdictional statutes cited by Plaintiff — 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 — nor the other statutes and constitutional amendments referred to in Plaintiffs complaint — 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 1651, and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution — waive sovereign immunity.

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

Brad Livingston, Robert Treon, Martha Wear and Paul Morales v. Atiba Ramone Taylor, Tdcj 1082601 · filed 2009-08-06

When sued under section 1983 in his official capacity, a suit against a state official is a suit against the state, and is therefore barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state agency when the state has not waived its immunity or consented to suit in federal court.

Perez v. Wade · filed 2009-08-19

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits under § 1983 against states, their agencies, and their officials sued in their official capacities for damages, unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity or consented to be sued in federal court. ... Thus, her claims against the Task Force are DISMISSED.

A successor government entity may be substituted in a § 1983 official-capacity action, and sovereign immunity does not bar a request for reinstatement.

Negron-Almeda v. Santiago · filed 2009-08-26

We disagree that Rule 25(c) is always inappropriate in a section 1983 action against an officer in his official capacity. ... In this case, however, CDA and COMEX do not enjoy sovereign immunity against the plaintiffs' requests for reinstatement.

Section 1983 claims against a state or a state official acting in an official capacity are subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Board of Education of the Pawling Central School District v. Schutz · filed 2002-05-13

We agree with the district court that the Eleventh Amendment requires dismissal of this cause of action. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment protects both states and state officials, acting in their official capacity, from suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983); accord Posr v. Court Officer Shield # 207, 180 F.3d 409, 414 (2d Cir.1999).

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state transportation department protected by state sovereign immunity.

Petsinger v. PA. Dept. of Transportation · filed 2002-07-01

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

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity in civil rights cases.

Hannon v. Beard · filed 2009-09-16

Congress has not abrogated sovereign immunity in civil rights cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984), and Pennsylvania has expressly declined to waive it, 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8521(b).

Section 1983 does not abrogate state immunity, and a state is not a person that may be sued under it.

Beleno v. Lakey · filed 2009-09-17

Courts considering the issues have determined that: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate a state's immunity; (2) Texas has not waived its immunity from suit for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims; and (3) the state is not a "person" capable of being sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims brought against DSHS and TAMU under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1983 civil rights claims against the Department of Defense, SPAWAR, and the Secretary of Defense in his official capacity fail because those defendants are immune from suit.

Abou-Hussein v. Gates · filed 2009-09-25

First, as to his civil rights claim, to the extent that he has sued the Secretary of Defense in his official capacity, the Department of Defense, and SPAWAR, that claim must fail because the defendants are immune from suit.

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

Schrader v. State of New Mexico · filed 2010-01-22

In enacting § 1983, Congress did not abrogate New Mexico’s sovereign immunity, id., and there is no indication in the record that New Mexico consented to suit.

Section 1983 does not override a state's sovereign immunity, and New York has not consented to § 1983 suits in federal court.

Mamot v. Board of Regents · filed 2010-02-22

It is well-established that New York has not consented to § 1983 suits in federal court, see Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 38-40 (2d Cir. 1977), and that § 1983 was not intended to override a state’s sovereign immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340-42 (1979).

Section 1983 bars suits against a state or its agencies, but permits prospective injunctive and declaratory relief against a state official in an official capacity for ongoing federal-law violations.

Alleyne v. New York State Education Department · filed 2010-02-24

Because the state and its agencies are immune from suit under § 1983, see Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990), plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims must be dismissed as against NYSED and NYSBR. However, to the extent plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive and declaratory relief from ongoing violations of federal law against Commissioner Mills in his official capacity, the federal constitutional claims are not barred by sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity bars a § 1983 claim for money damages against a state official in her official capacity.

Ashby v. State · filed 2010-03-05

We agree with the federal district court that sovereign immunity bars Ashby's § 1983 claim against Dyer, in her official capacity, because he sought only money damages.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity, but claims against them in their individual capacities are not.

McCoy v. State of Michigan · filed 2010-03-12

Moreover, the named Defendants, in their official capacities, are similarly entitled to immunity with respect to McCoy’s § 1983 claim because “a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office,” which is “no different from a suit against the State.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). McCoy’s § 1983 claim against the Defendants in their individual capacities, however, is not barred by sovereign immunity.

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

Austin v. Tennis · filed 2010-05-26

Although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law under which Austin proceeds.

Section 1983 does not permit a money damages claim against the United States because sovereign immunity bars such a claim.

Thurston v. United States · filed 2010-07-22

The Court construes the complaint as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the United States. Sovereign immunity bars a claim for money damages against the United States, and the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A § 1983 suit seeking prospective relief against a state officer requires a sufficient connection between that officer and enforcement of the challenged law; general authority to issue advisory opinions is insufficient.

McBurney v. Cuccinelli · filed 2010-07-27

Thus, his gen- eral authority to issue advisory opinions, in the abstract, is not sufficient to establish a "special relation" for Ex parte Young purposes.

Section 1983 claims against the United States Parole Commission are barred by the Commission’s sovereign immunity, although individual commissioners may be sued for actions under the Revitalization Act.

Boldenbey v. United States Parole Commission · filed 2010-08-16

Although “a cause of action under § 1983 will lie against the individual members of the Commission when acting pursuant to the Revitalization Act,” ... the USPC itself “retains the immunity it is due as an arm of the federal sovereign,” id. at 1106. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claims against the USPC must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1983 permits claims against individual Parole Commission members acting under the Revitalization Act, but the Commission itself retains sovereign immunity.

Bolden-Bey v. US Parole Commission · filed 2010-08-16

Although “a cause of action under § 1983 will lie against the individual members of the Commission when acting pursuant to the Revitalization Act,” 3 id. at 1104, the USPC itself “retains the immunity it is due as an arm of the federal sovereign,” id. at 1106.

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

Elbert v. New York State Department of Correctional Services · filed 2010-09-30

Accordingly, Plaintiffs § 1983 claims are barred by sovereign immunity and must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not treat states, state agencies, or state officials acting in their official capacities as persons who can be sued; sovereign immunity bars those claims unless the state waives it.

Buchanan v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2010-10-12

States, state agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” acting under color of state law; thus, Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars claims against these defendants unless the state has waived that immunity, and Oklahoma has not waived its sovereign immunity as to § 1983 claims.

A § 1983 plaintiff may seek prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities even when sovereign immunity bars relief against the state agency.

Credico v. New York State Board of Elections · filed 2010-10-28

The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit for injunctive relief against a state agency unless Congress has clearly abrogated the state’s immunity or the state has unequivocally waived its immunity. ... Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ request for prospective injunctive relief is available against the Commissioners acting in their official capacities under the Ex Parte Young doctrine.

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

J.D.G. & Tiby S. Gomez v. Colonial School District · filed 2010-11-02

The State has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court; although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, and states are not persons subject to suit under it.

Wood v. Milyard · filed 2011-01-13

§ 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity—indeed, states are not even “persons” within the meaning of § 1983, Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), and Plaintiff does not argue that Colorado has consented to this suit.

States and state agencies are not persons subject to suit under § 1983, and sovereign immunity bars claims seeking to enjoin them absent a waiver.

Tobie Ross, Jr. v. Texas Education Agency · filed 2011-02-01

Thus, because the Trustees seek to enjoin the State’s actions pursuant to § 1983, their claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Nails v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation · filed 2011-02-22

But Congress has not abrogated the States’ immunity from section 1983 actions, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979), and Pennsylvania has withheld its consent to suit in federal court, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8521(b).

Section 1983 claims against Commonwealth employees in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

Jones v. Hashagen · filed 2011-03-24

Inasmuch as Jones attempted to maintain claims against those defendants employed by the Commonwealth in their official capacities, those claims were barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal suits for monetary damages.

Baker v. James T Vaughn Correctional Ce · filed 2011-04-19

Moreover, although Congress can abrogate a state’s ... sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law under which Baker proceeds. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979). Accordingly, we agree that Baker’s § 1983 claims against the Correctional Center for monetary damages are barred.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity from damages claims against state officials in their official capacities.

Thomas v. Calero · filed 2011-04-20

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety. ... A State’s sovereign immunity is not abrogated by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Van Oss v. New York State · filed 2011-04-25

and the provisions of section 1983 were not intended to override a state’s immunity.

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

Keisling v. Renn · filed 2011-05-02

Moreover, although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of § 1983, the federal law under which Keisling proceeds.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Atkin v. Johnson · filed 2011-05-03

Although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law under which Atkin proceeds.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, even when they seek prospective equitable relief directly against the agency.

Texas Department of Transportation v. Esters · filed 2011-05-03

But, under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, the trial court lacks jurisdiction over all 1981 and 1983 Claims that Esters alleged or could allege against the Department, including claims under these statutes for prospective, equitable relief directly against the Department.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's sovereign immunity from official-capacity claims against its officers.

Simmons v. Grandison · filed 2011-06-20

Congress did not waive the States’ sovereign immunity through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against government officials require allegations that their own actions violated the Constitution, and official capacity claims against state entities and officials are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Jackson v. Murray States University · filed 2011-07-13

Many of Jackson’s federal and state claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... As a result, these claims against MSU and Dunn may not proceed. ... The precedent reveals that the Jackson’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, and the state law torts of outrage, assault, and battery should be dismissed against MSU and Dunn in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, so claims under it against an arm of the state are barred.

Carpenter v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2011-08-10

Given this, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant MVSU under 1983 are dismissed pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Barrington v. New York · filed 2011-08-26

But “[i]t is well-settled that Congress did not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment in enacting section 1983.” ... Accordingly, Barring-ton’s claims against the State of New York must be dismissed.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state agency are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not consented to suit in federal court.

Levy v. Cohen · filed 2011-09-01

In addition, the district court properly dismissed Levy’s damages claims against the New York State Attorney General’s Office, because, contrary to Levy’s contention on appeal, the Eleventh Amendment provides a state and its agencies with immunity from claims for damages in federal court where, as here, the State has not given consent to be sued.

Section 1983 damages claims against state agencies and state officials sued in their official capacities are barred by state sovereign immunity in federal court.

Swindle v. Livingston Parish School Board · filed 2011-09-08

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of the State Superintendent of Education, sued in his official capacity, and the DOE and the BESE, as they are entitled to state sovereign immunity from suit for money damages in federal court.

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

Kuna v. Illinois State Board of Elections · filed 2011-09-26

Congress has not abrogated a state defendant’s immunity to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from federal suit.

Trivedi v. NYS UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM · filed 2011-09-26

Congress has not abrogated sovereign immunity over claims brought under the ADEA, ADA and Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not waive sovereign immunity for claims against federal officials sued in their official capacities.

Bourdon v. Winter · filed 2011-09-28

Finally, insofar as Bourdon asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the federal defendants, that claim will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because that claim is barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

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

Munns v. Clinton · filed 2011-09-29

First, Section 1983 does not contain a statutory waiver of the federal government’s immunity and thus does not provide an avenue through which Plaintiffs can pursue their monetary claims.

Section 1983 does not overcome the U.S. Parole Commission’s sovereign immunity, which also bars official-capacity claims against its employees.

Mowatt v. United States Parole Commission · filed 2011-09-30

Therefore, “sovereign immunity blocks a § 1983 claim against the Commission.” ... Therefore, the Commission’s immunity extends to Plaintiffs claims against Ms. Moore in her official capacity.

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

Paul Bukovinsky, II v. Commonwealth of Pa · filed 2011-12-27

While a state may lose its immunity by Congressional abrogation or by waiver, Congress has not abrogated the States’ immunity from § 1983 actions, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979), and the Pennsylvania legislature has expressly declined to waive its sovereign immunity by statute.

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

DeCotiis v. Whittemore · filed 2012-02-02

Further, “neither a state agency nor a state official acting in her official capacity may be sued for damages in a section 1983 action.”

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

Beals v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2012-02-06

Here, Beals fails to show that § 1983 waives the government’s sovereign immunity.

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

Munns v. Clinton · filed 2012-03-27

More specifically, though Plaintiffs purported to bring the instant causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as this Court has already found, “Section 1983 does not contain a statutory waiver of the federal government’s immunity and thus does not provide an avenue through which Plaintiffs can pursue their monetary claims.” Order, 822 F.Supp.2d at 1074.

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars § 1983 claims against officials sued in their official capacities.

Amvets Post 711 v. Rutter · filed 2012-03-29

On May 23, 2011, Amvets filed this action against Rutter and Hartley, individually and in their official capacities, claiming a violation of Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... As an initial matter, the Eleventh Amendment provides immunity to both Hartley and Rutter, in their official capacities, from Amvets’ claims.

State officials sued in their official capacities are immune from claims for money damages under § 1983.

Abrams v. Department of Public Safety · filed 2012-03-31

Plaintiff agrees that the defendants, in their official capacities, are immune from claims for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These claims are dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against a state public university are barred by sovereign immunity when Congress has not abrogated that immunity and the state has not waived it.

Duncan v. University of Texas Health Science Center · filed 2012-04-10

No exception applies to his § 1983 claims, because there has been no abrogation by Congress, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979), nor waiver by the State of Texas, Aguilar v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998).

Section 1983 does not override a state’s sovereign immunity from damages claims.

Forter v. Geer · filed 2012-04-17

Neither § 1983 nor RLUIPA overrides sovereign immunity, and a state’s decision to accept federal funding does not constitute a waiver.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state fail because the state is immune from such suits.

Elzy v. Louisiana State · filed 2012-05-31

The magistrate judge and district court were correct that the State is immune from a civil rights suit for damages and thus any § 1983 claims against the State of Louisiana necessarily fail.

Section 1983 does not remove a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from constitutional claims for damages.

Ramos-Santos v. Hernandez-Nogueras · filed 2012-06-08

It is well-settled that Congress did not intent to waive states’ sovereign immunity by enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow suits against state agencies when sovereign immunity has not been abrogated or waived.

Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services v. Cannon · filed 2012-07-19

In enacting section 1983, Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity, and the Texas Legislature has not waived sovereign immunity for section 1983 suits.

A state and its employees sued in their official capacities retain Eleventh Amendment immunity from a Section 1983 action when the state has not waived that immunity by removing the case to federal court.

Ted Mink v. State of Arizona · filed 2012-07-30

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the State of Arizona and its employees in their official capacities because, contrary to Mink’s contention, the State did not remove the case to federal court and therefore did not waive its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Sovereign immunity bars § 1983 claims against state correctional defendants in their official capacities.

Hennis v. Tedrow · filed 2012-08-07

Inasmuch as Hennis attempted to maintain claims against the Defendants in their official capacities, we agree that those claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a retroactive award paid from a state treasury unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has abrogated it.

Consejo De Salud De La Comunidad De La Playa De Ponce, Inc. v. González-Feliciano · filed 2012-08-20

As a result, "[i]n a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the federal courts' remedial power 'may not include a retroactive award which requires ... the payment of funds from the state treasury.'" ... Here we cannot say that the Secretary voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of the federal courts or otherwise waived its immunity by litigation conduct.

Washington state agencies are immune from § 1983 suits in state court.

Harrell v. State · filed 2012-08-28

Because DSHS, a state agency, enjoys sovereign immunity from § 1983 lawsuits, the trial court properly dismissed Harrell’s civil rights claims against DSHS.

Sovereign immunity bars § 1983 claims for monetary damages against a state agency and state officials in their official capacities.

McFarlane v. Roberta · filed 2012-08-30

Ms. McFarlane, so far as this court can discern, has asserted federal claims based on five statutes: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of her Fourth Amendment rights preventing unreasonable search and seizure, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for civil rights violations and discrimination, 18 U.S.C. § 1708, for theft of her mail (as to Ms. Roberta), and 5 U.S.C. § 552 for violation of the Privacy Act. ... To the extent that Ms. McFarlane intended to preserve her claims for money damages, therefore, the court dismisses Ms. McFarlane’s federal claims for monetary damages against DCF, and the social workers in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a governor sued in his official capacity when sovereign immunity applies.

Pylant v. Bill Haslam, Governor of the State of Tennessee · filed 2012-09-11

We also affirm the dismissal of the claims against Governor Haslam for monetary damages as he has sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a constitutional claim against WMATA because WMATA has sovereign immunity.

McMillan v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2012-10-12

The Court construes Plaintiff’s constitutional claims as claims ... under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... WMATA is therefore immune from Plaintiff’s constitutional claims.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against the U.S. Parole Commission because the Commission retains sovereign immunity.

Stoddard v. U.S. Parole Commission · filed 2012-10-26

As the USPC is entitled to sovereign immunity, the Court has no subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against it.

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

Kermode v. University of Mississippi Medical Center · filed 2012-11-16

In addition, Eleventh Amendment immunity may be abrogated for certain civil rights litigation, see Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 56-59 (1996), but these do not include § 1983 suits, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979).

Sovereign immunity bars claims for monetary relief against state prison officials sued in their official capacity under Section 1983.

Hamilton v. Hernandez · filed 2012-11-21

Moreover, Hamilton’s claims for monetary relief against prison officials in their official capacity also fail on sovereign immunity grounds.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Young v. Hawaii · filed 2012-11-29

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

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

Raj v. Louisiana State University · filed 2013-04-22

We find that sovereign immunity bars Raj’s claims under state law; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985.

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

Mendez v. New Jersey State Lottery Commision · filed 2013-06-13

Section 1983 does not abrogate state‟s immunity.

A state court division is entitled to sovereign immunity from a Section 1983 claim because it is part of the state court system.

Driessen v. 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida Juvenile Division · filed 2013-07-01

Because the court is part of the state court system, it is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not waived that immunity.

Mathai v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University · filed 2013-07-17

The LSU Board of Supervisors is thus immune from liability for plaintiffs § 1983 claims.

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

Tiraco v. New York State Board of Elections · filed 2013-08-07

Indeed, none of the federal statutes invoked by Plaintiff — namely, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 — override New York’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against a state agency under the Ex parte Young exception, regardless of the relief sought.

Cunningham v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents · filed 2013-08-23

UNM is a state agency and therefore the Ex parte Young exception does not apply to Mr. Cunningham’s § 1983 claim against it, regardless of the relief Mr. Cunningham seeks.

In an action under § 1983, Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against a state or state officials.

Michael E. v. State · filed 2013-09-06

But in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 11th Amendment immunity does not bar an action against a state or state officials for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity to authorize suits against a state.

C.T. ex rel. Beason v. Bentley · filed 2013-09-16

Finally, the only federal statute relevant to C.T.’s claims is § 1983, which does not abrogate state sovereign immunity to authorize suits against a state.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state agency are barred when the agency has Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Hannon v. Beard · filed 2013-09-27

As an initial matter, plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against the Massachusetts DOC are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

WMATA’s sovereign immunity bars suits against it under § 1983.

Jideani v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2013-10-08

WMATA is not subject to suit under either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the DCHRA.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state court that is an arm of the state is immune from claims under it.

Sharnese v. State of California · filed 2013-11-04

Although Congress may render states liable in federal court by exercising its enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment, see Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), Congress did not do so with respect to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). The doctrine of state sovereign immunity bars appellants’ claims against the superior court, with the exception of Shea’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

State sovereign immunity bars damages claims against state officials in their official capacities under Section 1983 when the State invokes it.

Johnson v. Murray · filed 2013-12-13

The official capacity claim fails because the State invoked its sovereign immunity from a damages judgment.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state or its instrumentalities are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Demekpe v. Board of Trustees of the Calif · filed 2013-12-31

The district court also properly granted summary judgment to the extent that Demekpe sought damages because claims against a state or its instrumentalities are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

A state official sued under § 1983 for prospective relief must have a particular duty to enforce the challenged law to fall within the exception to sovereign immunity.

Morris v. Livingston · filed 2014-01-20

Section 501.063 does not specially task Governor Perry with its enforcement, or suggest that he will play any role at all in its enforcement. As a result, Governor Perry is not a proper defendant.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities fail when the State invokes sovereign immunity.

Johnson v. Murray · filed 2014-01-20

The official capacity claim fails because the State invoked its sovereign immunity from a damages judgment.

Section 1983 does not overcome a state's sovereign immunity from suit, including when the defendant is a state university.

Mutter v. Madigan · filed 2014-02-13

The Supreme Court has held Section 1983 is not an exception to state sovereign immunity. ... As such, Mutter’s claims against Defendant UIC are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state university that is an arm of the state absent a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Joseph v. Boise State University · filed 2014-02-21

Boise State is an arm of the state and thus immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution absent waiver of that immunity. ... Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff may be asserting a cause of action against Boise State under § 1983, Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action.

Sovereign immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against a state agency when a judgment might require payment from state funds.

Congregation MacHna Shalva Zichron Zvi Dovid v. United States Department of Agriculture · filed 2014-02-27

After de novo review, we agree with the District Court that any judgment on Shalva’s section 1983 claims might require the NYSED, a state agency, to provide the funds Shalva expended in running the 2010 program. Accordingly, sovereign immunity bars such claims.

Section 1983 does not waive a state agency’s sovereign immunity from damages claims.

in the Interest of K.G.S. and T.W.S., Children · filed 2014-02-27

We disagree and hold that TDFPS’s immunity from her section 1983 and RICO claims has not been waived.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Davis v. Proud · filed 2014-03-05

“[I]t is well settled that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not constitute an exercise of [Congress’s] authority [to abrogate States’ sovereign immunity pursuant to its powers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment].” Dube v. State University of New York, 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir.1990); see also Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (holding that Section 1983 did not abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity), and plaintiff fails to identify any other statute abrogating the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in this case.

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

Adams v. Supreme Court Pennsylvania · filed 2014-03-10

Further, although Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of § 1983, the federal law under which Adams proceeds.

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

Marino v. City University of New York · filed 2014-05-09

Consequently, Plaintiffs § 1983 claim for monetary damages against the Individual Defendants in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Pennsylvania’s sovereign immunity.

Warner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2014-06-16

Moreover, Congress did not abrogate Pennsylvania’s sovereign immunity through the enactment of § 1983.

A § 1983 suit against a state agency cannot proceed in federal court unless the state consents.

William Thomas, Jr. v. TN Dep't of Transportation · filed 2014-08-06

TDOT, a state agency, is the sole defendant named in Thomas’s complaint, and he does not suggest that the state of Tennessee consented to be sued in federal court. The case therefore cannot proceed in this forum.

Section 1983 does not itself waive sovereign immunity for claims against state officers or employees in their official capacities.

Putnam v. Mary F. Iverson and Gregory W. Abbott · filed 2014-08-14

Because sovereign immunity is not waived simply because the claims are brought under section 1983, see In re K.G.S., 2014 WL 801127, at *5, Putnam must establish that his claims against Iverson and Abbott in their official capacities fall within a waiver of or exception to sovereign immunity.

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

Wallace v. State · filed 2014-08-28

It is axiomatic that the State has not agreed to waive, nor has Congress intended to override, the State’s immunity from being sued in federal court based on Section 1983.

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

Large v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2014-09-04

But § 1983, the statutory basis of Large’s claims, does not abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity.

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

Steshenko v. Gayrard · filed 2014-09-29

First, Congress- did not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity for § 1983 claims.

Sovereign immunity bars damages claims against a state official in her official capacity under Section 1983.

Elmore v. Kelly · filed 2014-10-02

we agree with the district court that the official-capacity claims for damages were barred by sovereign immunity, see Serna v. Goodno, 567 F.3d 944, 952 (8th Cir. 2009); and that there was no basis for the deliberate-indifference claim against Kelly in her individual capacity, see McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974, 980-81(8th Cir. 2009) (prison official who is layperson may rely on medical professional’s opinion if such reliance is reasonable); Lomholt v. Holder, 287 F.3d 683, 684 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (denial of grievances cannot serve as basis for constitutional claim).

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

Grimes v. Florida · filed 2014-12-03

Plaintiff cannot bring these claims against the State of Florida because it enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.

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

Phiffer v. State of Oregon · filed 2014-12-05

The district court did not err in dismissing Phiffer’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The Supreme Court has held that Congress did not abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting § 1983.

Sovereign immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against a state officer in his individual capacity in a court of general jurisdiction.

Smith v. Johnson · filed 2015-03-10

Because the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar Smith from litigating his § 1983 claim against Johnson individually in state or federal courts of general jurisdiction, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166-67 (1985); Early v. Crockett, 436 S.W.3d 141, 148 & n.5 (Ark. 2014), the Claims Commission has no jurisdiction over that constitutional claim.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by sovereign immunity because a suit against the agency is a suit against the state.

Gray v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs. · filed 2015-03-17

In the present case, because the DCS is a state agency, Gray’s suit under § 1983 is a suit against the state and is barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against the USPC or its commissioners for actions taken with respect to a District of Columbia Code offender.

Head v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 2015-03-23

The USPC is a federal government entity; neither the USPC nor any one of its Commissioners is subject to a suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an action taken with respect to a District of Columbia Code offender.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim for prospective reinstatement against an appropriate state official to end a continuing violation of federal law.

Hays v. LaForge · filed 2015-07-06

Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim for injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement as Divisional Chair is permitted only if brought against the appropriate state official and seeking prospective relief to end a continuing violation of federal law.

States and state officials sued in their official capacities are not persons subject to money damages under Section 1983 without the state's consent.

Thomas v. Noder-Love · filed 2015-07-17

It is also well-settled that such sovereign immunity applies to claims under § 1983, meaning that states and state officials sued in their official capacity are not considered “persons” under § 1983 and, therefore, cannot be sued for money damages without the state’s consent.

Sovereign immunity bars § 1983 claims against state prison officials sued in their official capacities.

Gardner v. Straughn · filed 2015-07-28

We agree with the district court that Gardner’s official-capacity claims against defendants were barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity; a claim against state officials is barred when they lack a fairly direct connection to enforcing the challenged law.

Bolbol v. Brown · filed 2015-08-14

Accordingly, because the FAC contains no factual allegations from which the court could plausibly conclude defendants have a “fairly direct” connection with the enforcement of Section 527.8, sovereign immunity bars the federal Section 1983 claims against both defendants.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, so state agencies and offices are immune from claims under it.

Malcomb v. Beaver County Pennsylvania (Prothonotary) · filed 2015-09-16

The Department of Corrections, the Board of Probation and Parole, and the Attorney General’s Office are immune from Malcomb’s § 1983 claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against the United States are barred by sovereign immunity.

Michael v. United States · filed 2015-09-17

Although Michael added a claim under §§ 1983 and 1985 in the present case, such claims are precluded by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Nigen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Ken Paxton · filed 2015-09-30

Texas has not consented by statute, and § 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity from damages claims for federal constitutional violations.

Gaff v. Indiana-Purdue University of Fort Wayne · filed 2015-10-26

Indiana has not consented to be sued for damages for federal constitutional violations, see Ind. Code §§ 34-13-4-1 to -4, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has not abrogated states’ sovereign immunity from such claims.

Sovereign immunity may bar a § 1983 action.

Stewart v. Murphy · filed 2015-11-09

Arkansas inmate Phillip Dewayne Stewart appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and on the basis of sovereign immunity. After careful de novo review, we conclude that Stewart’s complaint was properly dismissed.

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

Owens v. Coleman · filed 2015-11-10

The District Court correctly dismissed Owens’ claims against Appellees in their official capacities because, as employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, they enjoy Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a plaintiff to maintain a suit against a state or state entity when sovereign immunity applies.

Shahmaleki v. Kansas State University · filed 2015-11-23

It is well settled that sovereign immunity precludes a plaintiff from maintaining a Section 1983 suit against a state or a state entity.

Section 1983 provides a civil remedy for violations of federal rights, subject to applicable immunities.

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2004-04-05

I concur in the majority opinion’s conclusion that the Los Angeles County Sheriff acted as an agent of the state in undertaking the criminal investigation in this case, and that under Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity principles, the sheriff was immune from prosecution for the asserted violations of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983 (section 1983)).

Section 1983 claims against juvenile court employees in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity when the court is an arm of the state.

Ortiz v. Holmes · filed 2016-01-18

As employees of the Juvenile Court, Holmes and DiBe-nardi are, therefore, entitled to immunity to the extent they are sued in their official capacities.