42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a Virginia regional jail because the jail is not a person subject to liability.

Dowell v. Western Regional Jail · filed 2021-02-25

First, Western Virginia Regional Jail is not a “person” subject to liability under § 1983.

A medical entity or prison medical department is not a person who can be sued under Section 1983.

Kerr v. Cook · filed 2021-02-26

A medical entity or prison medical department is not a “person” under section 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against persons, but a police precinct is not a person subject to suit.

Saidi v. Randall · filed 2021-03-01

Conduct amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be conduct undertaken by a person, and Woodlawn Precinct #2 is not a person within the meaning of the statute.

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

PASCALE v. SOUTHERN STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2021-03-02

Likewise, a prison is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state agency because the agency is not a “person” under the statute.

BOSTON v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES · filed 2021-03-02

Because DCS is considered an arm of the state of Indiana, it is not considered a "person" under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a jail because a municipal department is not a suable person.

Conwell v. Warren County Jail · filed 2021-03-04

Defendant WCRJ is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 because municipal departments, such as jails, are not suable under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a jail or an island because neither is a person subject to suit.

Griffith v. AMKC Rikers Island · filed 2021-03-04

The AMKC, a New York City jail, is not person for the purpose of § 1983. ... The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 against AMKC Rikers Island and Harts Island for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

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

Best v. Baltimore County · filed 2021-03-09

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

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

Harper v. George Bailey Detention Facility · filed 2021-03-15

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

Section 1983 allows suits against persons acting under color of law, but a sheriff’s office is not a suable person.

Houston v. Stucker · filed 2021-03-17

Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue a “person” who, acting under color of law, violates his constitutional rights. The Williamson County Sheriff’s Office is not a person but a municipal entity.

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

KLOCK v. INDIANA PAROLE BOARD · filed 2021-03-18

Mr. Klock's claims against the Indiana Parole Board must be dismissed because "the Indiana Parole Board is an agency of the State of Indiana and hence not a 'person' subject to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Hudson v. Indiana Parole Bd., No. 1:07-CV-1147-DFH-JMS, 2007 WL 2936623, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 9, 2007); see Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

A jail medical department is not a person that can be sued under § 1983.

Smith v. Harrisonburg-Rockingham Regional Jail Medical Dept. · filed 2021-03-19

The only named defendant, the “Harrisonburg-Rockingham Regional Jail Medical Dept.,” is not an entity capable of being sued or a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

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

Latimer v. Royce · filed 2021-03-23

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

Initia Lettau and the Maryland Office of the Public Defender are not amenable to suit under § 1983.

Moise v. Hein · filed 2021-03-26

We agree with the district court’s determination that two of the defendants—Initia Lettau and the Maryland Office of the Public Defender—were not amenable to suit under § 1983.

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

Littleton v. Hicks · filed 2021-04-13

On February 24, 2021, the magistrate judge entered an order advising Plaintiff that his Complaint is subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and because Defendant York County Detention Center Mailroom (the “Mailroom”) is not a “person” amendable to suit under § 1983. ... Thus, having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record under the appropriate standards and, finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (ECF No. 19), and incorporates it herein.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a federal district court because the court is not a person subject to liability under the section.

Bell v. The State Of Maryland · filed 2021-04-16

Because the United States District Court for the District of Maryland is not a “person” subject to suit or liability under § 1983, nor is it an agent of the State, Bell’s claims against the Court must also be dismissed.

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

Miller v. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority-Duffield Facility · filed 2021-04-26

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

Section 1983 does not permit claims against the State of Nevada or Lake’s Crossing Center because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Magnetic v. State of Nevada · filed 2021-04-28

Judge Cobb then recommends dismissing the State of Nevada and Lake’s Crossing Center with prejudice and without leave to amend because they are not “persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, therefore, Plaintiff cannot assert claims against them. ... It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full.

Section 1983 does not permit a civil rights claim against a state prison because the prison is not a person subject to suit.

Delatorre v. Donovan · filed 2021-05-04

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot pursue any § 1983 civil rights claims against RJD.

A municipal police department is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983 because it is not an independent governmental entity.

Spears v. New Haven Police Department · filed 2021-05-10

Because a municipal police department is not an independent governmental entity it is not considered to be a person under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state agencies or their correctional facilities because they are not persons subject to suit and retain Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Miley v. ERDCC · filed 2021-05-12

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants are immune from plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, and they are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

A county jail and sheriff’s office are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Davis v. Proffit · filed 2021-05-14

First, the Court notes that Plaintiff has named both the Jefferson County Jail and the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office as Defendants. However, neither of these entities are “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Villarreal v. Bigsby · filed 2021-05-20

Defendant Seward County Detention Center is dismissed because it is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and because Plaintiff’s ADA claim may only be asserted against Seward County itself.

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

Eslinger v. State of Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2021-05-21

A state agency such as the FDOC is not a person amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow suits against the United States government or its agencies because they are not persons under the statute.

Gomez v. United States District Court · filed 2021-05-26

Nor could Plaintiff make such a claim, as under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), the purported statutory basis for the Complaint (see Complaint at 1), neither the United States government nor its agencies are “persons” that can be sued under the statute.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against the North Carolina Department of Public Safety or its prison facilities because they are not persons under the statute.

Blake v. N.C. Dept of Public Safety / Mountain View CI · filed 2021-05-26

Therefore, NCDPS and its facilities are not “persons” under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against Guam and its officials for prospective injunctive relief, but they are not statutory “persons” when sued for retroactive damages.

Law Offices of Phillips and Bordallo v. Birn · filed 2021-06-02

What Ngiraingas, Ada, and Paeste establish together is that the Government of Guam and its officials may be sued for prospective injunctive relief, as they are “persons” for purposes of a § 1983 claim under the Ex parte Young doctrine. But if they are instead being sued for retroactive damages, the Government of Guam and Guam’s officials do not meet the § 1983 statutory definition of a “person.”

Section 1983 does not allow a money damages suit against a state acting through its corrections department because the state is not a person under the statute.

Peterson 369523 v. Brydle · filed 2021-06-08

In addition, the State of Michigan (acting through Defendant MDOC) is not a “person” who may be sued under § 1983 for money damages.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state corrections department or state prison because they are not persons under the statute.

Titus v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2021-06-10

The Court finds amendment futile since the named Defendants are not persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Plaintiff’s claim for a transfer is legally frivolous.

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

Harper v. George Bailey Detention Facility · filed 2021-06-15

First, the “San Diego County Jail” is managed by and/or a department of San Diego County, but it is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit against a person, and the Criminal Justice Center is not a person subject to liability under it.

KEEL III v. SEPTA'S PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITYS C.L.S. · filed 2021-06-17

Additionally, at least one entity clearly identified as a defendant — the Criminal Justice Center — is not a “person” subject to liability under § 1983.

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

Kirkman v. Marion County Jail · filed 2021-06-29

The Jail is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

COWARD v. JONES · filed 2021-06-29

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

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state, a state agency, or a division of a state agency because none is a person subject to suit.

Davis v. Furtick · filed 2021-07-06

Plaintiff cannot assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Connecticut DOC Prompt Care because the state, a state agency, or a division of a state agency is not considered a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against police departments or sheriff’s departments because they are not persons under the statute.

Blanch v. Cothron · filed 2021-07-06

Finally, any claim against MJPD and WCSO must be dismissed because these entities are not “persons” that can be sued under Section 1983.

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

Karamichos v. Dorris · filed 2021-07-07

The Jail is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983, so Plaintiff cannot proceed with any claim against this defendant.

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

Cottrell v. Baltimore County Police Station · filed 2021-07-13

Defendant Baltimore County Police Station (Woodlawn) is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against state departments and agencies because they are not persons subject to suit.

Haynes v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2021-07-29

It is well-settled that governmental departments and agencies, such as the MDOC, are not persons or legal entities subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

A jail and a state are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Duty v. Runyon · filed 2021-08-04

Neither the Jail, nor the State, is a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit only against a person; a prison building is not a viable defendant.

Cooper v. Jones · filed 2021-08-10

The Desoto Annex is a building, not a person, and is not a viable defendant under section 1983.

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

NGUIEN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2021-08-12

The DOC is an agency of the state, 71 P.S. § 310-1, and as such is not a person under §1983 and is immune from suit.

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

Dixon v. Baltimore County Detention Center · filed 2021-08-19

A number of courts have held that a detention facility is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. ... Accordingly, the claims against BCDC will be dismissed.

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

Whiting v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2021-08-19

We will accordingly grant summary judgment to DOC and SCI-Mahanoy medical department because they are not persons amenable to suit under § 1983.

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

YOUNG v. MONMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE · filed 2021-08-25

The Court, therefore, dismisses with prejudice the § 1983 claims against MCCI because it is not a “person” under § 1983.

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

Waldron v. Ojo · filed 2021-08-27

A number of courts have held that a detention facility is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. ... Therefore, the claims against MCCF will be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against an unnamed group of people such as “Jail administration”; a plaintiff must identify the individuals involved.

Free v. Bonner · filed 2021-08-30

A group of people is not a “person” subject to suit pursuant to § 1983.

A county sheriff’s department is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Barrios v. San Diego County Sheriff's Dept · filed 2021-08-31

The San Diego County Sheriff Department is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 and Barrios cannot pursue a § 1983 civil rights claims against the Department.

A prison or state corrections department is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

Simmons 776979 v. Oaks Correctional Facility · filed 2021-08-31

Neither a prison nor a state corrections department is a “person” within the meaning of section 1983.

A sheriff’s office is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Fennell v. Bonner · filed 2021-08-31

As the Screening Order explained, the SCSO is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit direct claims against Maryland county school boards because they are not persons under the statute.

Gandy v. Howard County Board Of Education · filed 2021-09-01

First, as to the Gandys’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, it is well established in Maryland that county school boards as not considered “persons” under § 1983 and therefore cannot be subject to liability under the statute.

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

Dellinger v. Downs · filed 2021-09-02

It is well settled that a state or local correctional facility is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a county jail as a person subject to liability.

SMITH v. CAPE MAY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2021-09-10

County Jails are not “persons” subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against Maryland county school boards or their officials in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Lancaster v. Baltimore County Maryland · filed 2021-09-13

Board Defendants argue as an initial matter that the Board and the Individual Board Defendants in their official capacities are not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court agrees.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to be a person; a group identified only as mental health staff does not qualify.

Hamilton v. Mental Health Staff at JTVCC · filed 2021-09-17

The named defendant is not a person as required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Robinson v. Bureau of Health Care Services · filed 2021-09-22

Accordingly, the Bureau of Health Care Services is not a “person” for purposes of Section 1983 and will be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against county prisons because they are not persons under the statute.

Heizman v. Dauphin County Prison · filed 2021-09-23

County prisons are not persons subject to liability under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state correctional facility; a private prison medical contractor may be liable when its policy, custom, or practice causes a rights violation.

Ray v. MECC · filed 2021-09-28

Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim because MECC is not suable for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and because the Complaint does not allege that any Corizon policy, custom, or practice violated Plaintiffs rights.

Section 1983 permits suit against the Baltimore Police Department as a person because it lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Earl v. Taylor · filed 2021-09-29

Therefore, the court determines BPD does not retain Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and is a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Pennsylvania magisterial district courts are not persons who may be sued under § 1983.

SZERENSCI v. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURT 14-3-02 · filed 2021-09-30

Before proceeding to this analysis, however, the Court first observes that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Magisterial District Court 14-3-02 in an individual capacity are barred because Magisterial district courts, which are a part of Pennsylvania’s unified judicial system, are not “persons” who may be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county court system because it is not a person under the statute.

Graham v. State of South Carolina · filed 2021-09-30

Additionally, the magistrate judge found that Defendant Florence County Court Systems does not constitute a “person” for purposes of § 1983 and is, therefore, also subject to dismissal. ... Thus, having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record in this case, the court, finding no clear error, agrees with and wholly ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the Report (ECF No. 26), which are incorporated herein by reference.

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

Sosa v. Richeson · filed 2021-10-01

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has, but cannot, assert his section 1983 claims againt the DOC, a state agency that is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Hranek v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville · filed 2021-10-01

Moreover, the FDOC is considered an “arm[] of the state,” not a “person” under § 1983.

Municipal police departments and sheriff’s offices are generally not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Thomas v. Mattingly · filed 2021-10-01

In addition, “it is well settled that municipal police departments, sheriff's offices, and jails are not generally considered persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and thus not amenable to suit.”

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state, a state prison, or a state prison medical department because they are not persons subject to liability under the statute.

CORREA-MARTINEZ v. PEREYRA · filed 2021-10-01

Here, Plaintiff's claims against the State of New Jersey, Northern State Prison, and the Mental Health Department fail because they are not “persons” subject to liability under Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits claims against persons, but a correctional facility is not a person subject to suit.

Andretta v. City of New York · filed 2021-10-01

E.M.T.C. is not a “person” within the meaning of ... §1983.

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

Dennison v. State of Missouri Department of Corrections · filed 2021-10-05

Briefly, the MDOC is an entity of the State of Missouri, and as such is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state correctional agencies because they are not persons subject to suit.

Howard v. MECC · filed 2021-10-06

Claims against the Missouri Department of Corrections and the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because they are not “persons” that can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), and plaintiff’s claims against them would be barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a collective designation such as jail staff because it is not a person.

Wright v. Riverside Jail Staff · filed 2021-10-07

Nevertheless, the Court has already explained to Wright that Riverside Jail Staff is not a person amenable to suit in § 1983. ... Accordingly, any claim against Riverside Jail Staff will be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and as legally frivolous.

Section 1983 permits suit only against a person; Michigan state courts are not persons within its meaning.

MacArthur 524290 v. Eaton County 56A District Court · filed 2021-10-07

Furthermore, civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may only be brought against a “person,” and states and their subdivisions are clearly not persons within the meaning of the statute.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against county jails or county departments because they are not persons under the statute.

HEARNS v. LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE · filed 2021-10-07

Neither a county jail nor a county department are “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a county probation department or county prison because they are not persons subject to suit under the statute.

Davenport v. Cumberland County Public Defender Office · filed 2021-10-07

Additionally, the Cumberland County Probation Department and the Cumberland County Prison are not proper Defendants as they are not persons subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a prison facility or department because it is not a person or legal entity subject to suit.

Taylor v. Hull · filed 2021-10-08

A prison facility or department is not a “person” or legal entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A Kansas sheriff’s office is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Walker v. Douglas County Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-10-12

Therefore, this Court and others have held that a sheriff’s office is not a “person” who is subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Rigsby v. Corder · filed 2021-10-13

However, the Department of Corrections is subject to dismissal because as an arm of the State it is not a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Rigsby v. Quater · filed 2021-10-13

However, the Department of Corrections is subject to dismissal because as an arm of the State it is not a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A sheriff’s office is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Sowah v. Guy · filed 2021-10-13

With these principles in mind, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot sustain this claim against the McMinn County Sheriff’s Office, as it is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

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

Johnson v. Vanzant · filed 2021-10-19

Illinois Department of Corrections Vandalia must be dismissed as a Defendant because it is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Weldon v. Cahokia Police Department · filed 2021-10-20

Cahokia Police Department is not a “person” who is subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a city justice center that is not a legal entity amenable to suit.

Johnson v. Saint Louis City Justice Department · filed 2021-10-21

The St. Louis City Justice Center is not a legal entity amenable to suit.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against the New Jersey State Parole Board because it is not a person subject to liability under the statute.

NORMAN v. N.J. STATE PAROLE BOARD · filed 2021-11-02

As the New Jersey State Parole Board is not a “person” subject to liability under Section 1983 or the NJCRA, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against it with prejudice.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to be a person; state prisons and hospitals are not persons subject to liability under it.

CORREA-MARTINEZ v. RAHWAY HOSPITAL · filed 2021-11-08

To be liable under Section 1983, therefore, a defendant must be a “person.”

Section 1983 does not treat Pennsylvania state courts, the Pennsylvania State Police, or county jails as persons amenable to suit.

Smith, Jr. v. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas · filed 2021-11-16

The state courts in Pennsylvania, the PSP, and the Franklin County Jail are not considered “persons” for the purpose of § 1983 and therefore are not amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against prisons because they are not persons subject to suit under the section.

Harris v. Mack · filed 2021-11-22

Prisons are not subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services or Patuxent Institution because they are not persons under the statute.

Fitriya'ohniya v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services · filed 2021-11-24

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

Section 1983 does not impose liability on foreign government officials or foreign entities.

TABAKA v. LEYRE · filed 2021-11-24

However, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims do not apply to foreign government officials or foreign entities.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, SCI-Waymart, or the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole because they are not persons under the statute.

Endrikat v. Ransom · filed 2021-11-29

To begin, the amended complaint names as defendants the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”), SCI-Waymart, and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, none of which may be sued under § 1983.

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

Hochschild v. Horton · filed 2021-11-30

The only named defendant in this case is the DOC. Hochschild has not identified any “persons,” in their individual or official capacities, as defendants in this case. Thus, he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a municipal police department as a separate entity.

Pina v. Sacuan Security and Police · filed 2021-12-03

The SDPD is managed by and/or a department of the City of San Diego, but it is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Duke v. Parker · filed 2021-12-06

TDOC is an arm of the State of Tennessee and not a “person” as contemplated by § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against the Virginia Department of Corrections or a probation and parole district because those agencies are not persons under the statute.

Cowles v. Department of Corrections and Probation and Parole District 34 · filed 2021-12-28

The named Defendants in this action, the “Department of Corrections” and “Probation and Parole District 34,” are not considered to be “persons amenable to suit under § 1983.” ... Because Plaintiff chose not to file an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s initial Complaint remains the operative Complaint in this action and, as explained above, it does not sufficiently state a claim against any Defendant upon which relief may be granted.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state correctional facilities because they are not persons under the statute.

Lotharp-Crawford v. Mountain View Correctional Institute · filed 2022-01-03

Thus, NCDPS facilities are not “persons” under § 1983.

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

Fuller v. Honeycutt · filed 2022-01-03

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

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a court administration because it is not a person under the statute.

McChester v. Hemingway · filed 2022-01-04

The court administration, however, is not a “person” within the meaning of 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a state correctional facility because the state is not a person subject to suit.

Williams 394751 v. Ionia Correctional Facility · filed 2022-01-07

In addition, the State of Michigan (acting through the MDOC and ICF) is not a “person” who may be sued under § 1983 for money damages.

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

ALI v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2022-01-11

George W. Hill Prison is also not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 and is, accordingly, dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against the Philadelphia Department of Prisons because it is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

ORTIZ v. AMAZON · filed 2022-01-11

Because the Philadelphia Department of Prisons is not considered a “person” for purposes of § 1983, ... Ortiz’s claim against it is dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 permits suit against a person, and a detention center does not qualify.

Hand v. Allen · filed 2022-01-14

Conduct amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be conduct undertaken by a person, and Cecil County Detention Center does not qualify.

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

CRUZ v. WARREN · filed 2022-01-18

Assuming that he does intend to sue the jail, under § 1983, the Cumberland County Jail, like other county jails, is not a “person” amendable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state court because an arm of the state is not a person subject to suit under the section.

FIGUEROA v. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-01-21

The Superior Court of New Jersey, as an arm of the state, is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a state or a state agency because neither is a person under the statute.

Owen, Brenda v. CDPU · filed 2022-01-24

Yet neither the State of Wisconsin nor the CDPU is a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against the Philadelphia Department of Prisons because the department is not a person subject to suit.

LUCAS v. PHILADELPHIA DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS · filed 2022-01-25

Because the Philadelphia Department of Prisons is not considered a “person” for purposes of § 1983, Durham, 2018 WL 3105589 at *2 (citing Peele v. Philadelphia Prison Sys., Civ. A. No. 12-4877, 2015 WL 1579214, at *2 (E.D. Pa. April 8, 2015)), Lucas’s claim against it is dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against the University of Texas Medical Branch because it is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

Birdow v. Chapa · filed 2022-01-28

(3) Birdow’s claims against UTMB are DISMISSED because UTMB is not a “person” subject to claims under § 1983; ... ORDERED on January 28, 2022.

Police departments are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Johnson v. Illinois State Police · filed 2022-01-31

These two entities are not considered “persons” who are subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

Labossiere v. Downstate Correctional Facility · filed 2022-02-07

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

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

Swann v. District Attorney of Kingsport · filed 2022-02-07

As an initial matter, the Kingsport Police Department is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a county jail, sheriff’s office, or medical department because those entities are not persons under the statute.

Gudger v. Frazer · filed 2022-02-08

Additionally, neither the Sullivan County Jail, the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office, nor the Sullivan County Medical Department are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983, and therefore, they are non-suable entities in this action.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states or arms of state government because they are not persons under the statute.

Farmer v. Parker · filed 2022-02-14

However, neither a state nor an arm of its government is a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a jail building because it is not a person.

Spangler v. Eschette · filed 2022-02-15

While Plaintiff has named the Meigs County Jail as a Defendant in this suit, a jail is a building and not a “person” within the understanding of § 1983.

States and state officials acting in their official capacities are not persons under § 1983.

Zab v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections Jose R. Rivera v. State of Rhode Island Department of Correctio · filed 2022-03-02

This Court has recognized that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Pontbriand v. Sundlun, 699 A.2d 856, 868 (R.I. 1997) (quoting Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)). Because Zab sued the DOC and the DOC Director in her official capacity, that portion of his complaint based upon § 1983 was properly denied by summary judgment.

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

Zendian v. Indiana Department of Child Services · filed 2022-03-08

Thus, DCS, an agency of the State of Indiana, and Defendants Stigdon and Rich in their official capacities are not persons within the meaning of § 1983, and the § 1983 the claim for damages against them is barred.

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

Porter v. Mountain View Correctional · filed 2022-03-09

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

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

Johnson v. Salmon · filed 2022-03-14

Because a detention center is not a legal entity, it is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 and Johnson cannot maintain this action against the defendant ACADC.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a sheriff’s office because it is not a person subject to suit under the statute.

Leslie v. Hamilton County Sheriff's Office (PSLC1) · filed 2022-03-15

Additionally, the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

An arm of the state is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Henderson v. Board of Supervisors of Southern University · filed 2022-03-23

Southern University’s Board of Supervisors is considered an arm of the State of Louisiana and, therefore, is not a “person” under Section 1983.

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

Coffey v. State of Vermont · filed 2022-03-24

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded Plaintiffs claim against the HPD must be dismissed because the HPD is not considered a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

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

ZIGLER v. WARREN · filed 2022-03-28

Next, the Cumberland County Jail, like other county jails, is not a “person” amendable to suit under § 1983.

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

Brown v. Yates · filed 2022-03-29

Therefore, they are not “persons” subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against a state university’s board of regents or a university hearing officer in his official capacity because they are not persons under the section.

Clarkson v. Board of Regents of New Mexico · filed 2022-03-31

It concluded that neither the NMSU Board of Regents nor Pontelli, in his official capacity, were “persons” amenable to suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... To the extent Clarkson re-asserts arguments he presented to the district court, we affirm for substantially the reasons cited by the district court.

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

NELSON v. CAPE MAY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2022-04-01

The jail, however, is not a proper defendant in a prisoner civil rights matter, and must be dismissed as such.

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

PUMBA v. LEHIGH COUNTY JAIL · filed 2022-04-05

A county correctional facility, such as the LCJ, is not a “person” under section 1983.

An arm of the state is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

WESTERN FUNDING, INC. v. SOUTH SHORE TOWING, INC. · filed 2022-04-11

Accordingly, NJTA is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and, for that reason, NJTA also does not qualify as a “person” that is subject to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages claims against detention centers because they are not persons subject to suit.

Whitehead v. Garcia · filed 2022-04-15

It is well settled that detention centers are not “persons” subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

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

Artis v. Delpaz · filed 2022-04-18

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

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a detention center building because it is not a person capable of being sued.

Szpila v. Love · filed 2022-04-19

Plaintiff cannot sue the Jerome Combs Detention Center because it is a building and not a person capable of being sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections because the department is not a suable person.

Childress v. Louisville Metro Department of Corrections · filed 2022-04-20

Accordingly, because LMDC is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983, all of Childress’s claims against LMDC are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not allow a suit against a correctional institution because it is not a person subject to suit.

Jordan v. Buncombe County Jail Doctor · filed 2022-04-25

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

A New Jersey county prosecutor’s office acting as an arm of the State in its law enforcement and investigative functions is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

CRISAFULLI v. TOWNSHIP OF BRANCHBURG · filed 2022-04-29

For these reasons, the Court finds that the SCPO was acting as an arm of the State and was therefore not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with respect to the offending conduct at issue.

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

Howell v. Department of Housing and Community Development · filed 2022-05-02

To the extent Howell brings a claim under Section 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights, such claims must be dismissed because the named defendants are not “persons” subject to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a jail or sheriff’s office because neither is a person subject to suit.

Nelson v. Sullivan County Jail · filed 2022-05-10

Additionally, neither the Sullivan County Jail nor the SCSO is a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Swann v. Hinkle · filed 2022-05-16

The Court finds that neither the TDOC nor the Sullivan County Jail are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983, and therefore they are not amenable to suit.

Section 1983 permits suit against a person acting under color of law; a county sheriff’s department is not a person under the section.

Hotvedt v. Waukesha County Sheriff Department · filed 2022-05-20

The Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department is not a person.

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

Terry v. Randolph County Jail · filed 2022-05-20

A jail is not a considered a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983 and is not a suable entity.

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

Van Vleet v. Menard Correctional Center · filed 2022-05-20

The only named defendant is Menard Correctional Center, which is not a “person” subject to suit for money damages under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a county sheriff’s department or its subdivisions because they are not persons under the statute.

Saxton v. San Diego County Sheriff's Department · filed 2022-05-23

Plaintiff cannot state a § 1983 claim against the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department or its subdivisions because those entities are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against the Rhode Island Superior Court because it is not a “person” under the statute.

Munir v. The Rhode Island Superior Court Corporation · filed 2022-06-01

Instead, the Complaint sues the Superior Court of Rhode Island, an entity that is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and cannot be sued for damages.

A sheriff’s department is not a person that may be sued under § 1983.

Beard v. Hamilton County Sheriff's Department · filed 2022-06-01

The sole Defendant named in this action is the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department, which is not a “person” that may be sued under § 1983.

A sheriff’s office is not a person subject to liability under Section 1983.

Moon v. Roanoke City Sheriff Office · filed 2022-06-03

The Roanoke City Sheriff’s Office is not a “person” subject to liability under § 1983.

State agencies and state prison facilities are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

MEHMETI v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-06-03

It is well established that that the state and state entities, such as NJDOC and Edna Mahan, are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state or its parole agency because they are not persons under the statute.

Cornel v. State of Hawaii · filed 2022-06-10

Cornel cannot seek damages from Hawai‘i and the parole office because they are not “persons” under § 1983.

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

Clement v. Macomb Correction Facility · filed 2022-06-24

A state prison or correctional facility is not a “person” for purposes of the Civil Rights Act.

Section 1983 permits suits only against persons, and a county correctional facility is not a person subject to liability under the section.

CAICEDO v. HUDSON COUNTY CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-06-27

To be liable under Section 1983, therefore, a defendant must be a “person.”

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a county jail, police department, or county court because they are not persons under the statute.

Hampton v. Bethalto Police Department · filed 2022-07-07

As a preliminary matter, the Madison County Jail, Bethalto Police Department, and Madison County Court are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

MCCLEESE v. COGNETTI · filed 2022-07-07

McCleese’s claim against Lackawanna County Prison fails because Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to bring suit only against a “person” who violates the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and county prisons are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

Jackson v. Dameron · filed 2022-07-08

Likewise, “[t]he medical department of a prison may not be sued, because it is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.” Harden v. Green, 27 F. App’x 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the Medical Department is not a proper defendant in this action.

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

BANKS v. GRISOM · filed 2022-07-21

Plaintiff cannot pursue a § 1983 claim against SCCF because a county jail is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

MCNAIR v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-07-27

Here, the State of New Jersey; the DOC, DOH, ADTC, and STU which operate as an arm of the State by virtue of being funded by, controlled by, and accountable to the State; and Hicks and Royce in their official capacities, are plainly not “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983.

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

Smith v. Troulakis · filed 2022-08-05

Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims are implausible for the additional reason that “neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983” and thus no action may lie against them for money damages.

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

Swann v. Washington County Jail · filed 2022-08-19

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

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

Brown 712722 v. Tribble · filed 2022-08-24

Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint against the Ionia Correctional Facility Health Care System and the Oaks Correctional Facility Health Care System fails to state a claim because those Defendants are not persons under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a state, its corrections department, or a state official sued in an official capacity for damages as a person amenable to suit.

GRAHAM v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-09-02

These claims also fail because the State, the DOC, and Commissioner Hicks in his official capacity are not “persons” amenable to suit under Section 1983.