42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a corporate medical provider or a private hospital because neither is a person subject to liability under the section.

SCHELL v. PRIME CARE MEDICAL, SCP · filed 2022-09-06

Neither Defendant is a “person” subject to liability under Section 1983. Accordingly, these Defendants must be dismissed.

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

Harris v. State of Maryland · filed 2022-09-09

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

Section 1983 permits suit only against persons; a correctional institution is not a person subject to suit.

Alvarez v. MCI-H · filed 2022-09-12

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

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

Brown v. Lakin · filed 2022-09-13

The Madison County City Sheriff’s Office is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

State agencies such as the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

Burton v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2022-09-14

Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983; state agencies such as the Pennsylvania DOC do not qualify.

Section 1983 does not treat a county jail’s administration department as a person subject to suit.

Wong v. Betti · filed 2022-09-15

In accordance with this standard, the Court finds that affording Plaintiff leave to amend his claims against LCJ Administration Department would be futile, as LCJ Administration Department is not “person” for purposes of Section 1983 and, thus, is not subject to suit under the statute.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state officials in their official capacities when sovereign immunity has not been waived.

Nye v. Tapia · filed 2022-09-16

As there is no waiver of sovereign immunity, Defendants in their official capacities are not “persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit only against persons; DPSCS and NBCI are not persons under the statute.

Collins v. Maynard · filed 2022-09-16

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

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

Peeples v. Wayne State University · filed 2022-09-16

Neither states nor state officials sued in their official capacities are “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

FRANCHVILLE v. CAPE MAY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER · filed 2022-09-20

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

Section 1983 does not permit suit against county offices or departments that lack a separate legal existence.

Jackson v. Cotant · filed 2022-09-23

Three of the named Defendants—the Commissioners, the Department, and SBCDC—are not “persons” who can be sued under section 1983.

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

Mobley v. Polk County Sheriff's Department · filed 2022-09-28

Defendant Sheriff’s Department is not a proper Defendant in this matter because it is not “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit against a person who acts under color of law, but a county jail is not a person subject to suit under the section.

Stallings v. Does · filed 2022-10-04

The plaintiff may not proceed on a claim under §1983 against the defendant he did name, “Milwaukee County Jail Medical Staff.” Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue a “person” who, acting under color of law, violates his constitutional rights. The Milwaukee County Jail is not a person—it is not an individual subject to suit under §1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against county management or jail administration because they are not persons subject to suit under the statute.

Brown v. Montgomery County Management · filed 2022-10-04

Turning to the Defendants named by Plaintiff in his complaint, Montgomery County Management and Montgomery County Jail Administration are not “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

ANDERSON v. AVILES · filed 2022-10-12

To the extent he seeks to sue HCCF, the claim is dismissed because a county correctional facility is not a “person” acting under color of state law and, therefore, is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action.

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

Sollenberger v. United States of America · filed 2022-10-17

However, the Department of Corrections and SCI-Rockview are not amenable to suit because they are not persons as required for purposes of § 1983 and are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Harris 292201 v. Johnson · filed 2022-10-20

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

Section 1983 permits suit against a person acting under color of state law; a county jail and sheriff’s office are not persons subject to suit.

Cartledge v. Geason · filed 2022-10-24

Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue a “person” who violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. Neither the jail nor the sheriff’s department are “persons.”

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

Laftavi v. State University of New York · filed 2022-10-24

SUNY is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

Nero v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2022-10-25

But the State—the only defendant named in the complaint—is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit against persons, and MCTC Administration is not a person subject to suit.

Wilson v. MCTC Administration · filed 2022-10-26

Wilson names “MCTC Administration” as a Defendant; however, MCTC Administration is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit only against a person; a state and its corrections department are not persons under the statute.

Jarrett 173944 v. Lakeland Correctional Facility · filed 2022-10-26

But neither the State of Michigan nor the MDOC is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

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

RIVERA v. ATLANTIC COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITY · filed 2022-10-27

A county jail such as the Facility, however, is not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Cannady v. Polk County Jail · filed 2022-10-31

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

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

Kratzer Farms Inc. v. Indiana Grain Buyers and Warehouse Licensing Agency · filed 2022-11-01

Defendant’s first argument is that any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed because it is not a “person” subject to suit under the statute. See Thiele v. Bd. of Trs. of Ill. State Univ., 35 F.4th 1064, 1066 (7th Cir. 2022). Plaintiffs effectively concede the point, stating that they will seek to amend their complaint to add Defendant’s director, Harry Wilmoth, as a defendant. All § 1983 claims, then, must be dismissed.

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

Morales v. Connecticut Department of Corrections · filed 2022-11-02

As an initial matter, the Court must dismiss any section 1983 claim against the DOC because the state, a state agency, or a division of a state agency is not a “person” subject to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 permits an award of damages against board members sued in their individual capacities.

Newborn v. Morrison · filed 1977-11-25

Since this suit is seeking damages against the members of the Board in their individual capacities, an award of damages under § 1983 is appropriate.

Section 1983 permits state officials to be sued in their official capacities for injunctive relief.

Kenneth T. Rainey, Cross v. Jackson State College, Etc., Cross · filed 1979-03-20

The individual appellees, the President of Jackson State . College and the President, Executive Secretary and members of the Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning of the State of Mississippi, were properly sued in their official capacities for injunctive relief under § 1983.

Section 1983 official-capacity actions against state officers are limited to prospective relief, while retrospective monetary relief is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Harrison v. Pyle · filed 1985-06-24

When against an individual in an official capacity, these actions are limited to suits for prospective relief and do not include actions for retrospective monetary damages which ultimately would have to be paid out of state treasuries. ... Therefore, Harrison’s suit against Pyle acting in his official capacity for monetary relief is barred in this court by the Eleventh Amendment.

A Section 1983 complaint against a public official solely in his individual capacity does not allege the governmental action required for constitutional liability.

Moss v. Robertson · filed 1986-03-28

However, all the alleged constitutional restrictions barring the appellee from firing appellants are down the drain and of no avail since neither appellant has sued ap-pellee in any manner except in his individual capacity. ... The constitutional constraints under which the appellants here seek protection ... prohibit governmental action, not individual or private action.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against state employees in their official capacities, but does not bar individual-capacity claims.

York v. Lamantia · filed 1987-11-18

The 11th Amendment, however, does not preclude suits against state officers or employees in their individual capacity. ... Immunity, therefore, bars action against Defendants in their official capacity, but not individually.

Plaintiffs state a § 1983 claim by adequately alleging constitutional violations, but state officials may not be sued for damages in their official capacities.

E & E Construction Co. v. Illinois · filed 1987-11-26

Individual Plaintiffs have stated claims under the Privileges and Immunities, Commerce, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, and they have hence advanced a cause of action under Section 1983. ... Individual Defendants may not be sued for damages in their official capacities.

Section 1983 allows a claim against a Florida sheriff in his individual capacity despite Eleventh Amendment immunity, but bars a claim against him in his official capacity.

Majette v. Butterworth · filed 1988-04-25

Accordingly, Majette’s § 1983 action against Butterworth in his official capacity as sheriff must fail. ... Thus, Majette’s § 1983 action against Butterworth in his individual capacity will survive despite the Eleventh Amendment’s protections and prohibitions.

Section 1983 permits damages against state officials in their individual capacities despite a state law providing for their indemnification.

Blaylock v. Schwindon · filed 1988-09-07

The court may properly order the officials to pay damages under Sec. 1983, but if the officials desire indemnification under the state statute, they must bring their own action in state court.

Section 1983 permits constitutional claims against state officials in their individual capacities; a complaint that does not expressly sue them in that capacity is treated as suing them only in their official capacities.

Komutanon v. Coler · filed 1988-12-29

In addition, federal courts have jurisdiction over actions for violations of the United States Constitution against state officials acting in their individual capacities. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Because the Complaint does not explicitly state that plaintiff is suing the officials in their individual capacities, the court assumes that plaintiff is only suing the officials in their official capacitites.

When a Section 1983 complaint does not make clear whether defendants are sued in their individual or official capacities, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances.

Abdul-Wadood v. Jack Duckworth and Edward Cohn · filed 1989-01-09

When the nature of a section 1983 suit is unclear from the face of the complaint, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances.

A § 1983 complaint may give sufficient notice that an officer is sued in his individual capacity through its language, even when the caption does not expressly state that capacity.

Jackson v. Gary R. Crews, a Fayetteville City Policeman, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a Municipal Corpo · filed 1989-07-13

We agree that the language of the complaint is sufficiently clear in this case to have given Crews notice that he was being sued in his individual capacity. We caution future § 1983 litigants, however, that it would be much better for them to clearly indicate both the parties being sued and their capacity in the caption.

Section 1983 permits claims against officials in their individual capacities as well as their official capacities for actions under color of state law.

Goodwin v. Debekker · filed 1989-07-18

Defendants also take the position that the plaintiff may not file this § 1983 action against them as individuals but only in their official capacities as sheriff and un-dersheriff acting under “color of state law.” They have not cited any legal authority in support of their argument. To the extent that this argument applies to the plaintiff’s seven claims for relief, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this ground is denied.

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity claims against state officials acting under color of state law, and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar those claims.

Evans v. Celeste · filed 1989-08-24

Finally, he can be sued in his “personal” or “individual” capacity, that is, when he is acting under color of state law but not in his “official” capacity. ... Therefore, to the extent that the remaining individual defendants were acting in their “personal” or “individual” capacities, the claims against them are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the Court has no reason to await a determination by the Ohio Court of Claims.

Section 1983 permits claims against state board members in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief.

Konijnendijk v. Deyoe · filed 1989-12-11

The court, however, does find that plaintiffs second argument has merit and precludes the entry of summary judgment for the individual members of the Board of Regents. These defendants are sued in their official capacities solely for the purpose of prospective injunctive relief. This is proper.

Section 1983 permits an individual-capacity suit against a state official for acts during employment when the official acted outside the scope of office or grossly abused its lawful powers.

Gallipeau v. Berard · filed 1990-03-30

Official capacity suits do not, as defendants here suggest, encompass every suit involving acts performed during the course of a state actor’s employment. Defendants have confused “during the course of employment” with “within the scope of employment.” Courts must analyze whether the complaint alleges that the state official “acted either outside the scope of his respective office or, if within the scope, acted in an arbitrary manner, grossly abusing the lawful powers of office.”

Section 1983 permits monetary relief against prison officials sued in their individual capacities for an alleged assault outside the apparent or authorized scope of their official duties.

Travier v. L. Putnam, Inspector Everett Elkins Paul Deleeuw Maynard, Sgt. C/o Hart C/) Fath, Ian McDonald · filed 1990-04-24

In addition, we also conclude that plaintiff is properly suing the defendants in their individual capacity for monetary relief because the alleged assault does not fall within the apparent or authorized scope of their official duties.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a governor who was not named in his individual capacity.

See v. Wallace Wilkinson, Governor Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 1990-05-11

Likewise, Governor Wilkinson is not subject to suit for damages under Sec. 1983 because he was not named in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officers require suing them in their individual capacities.

George T. Haynie, Jr. v. Tennessee State Penitentiary and Hospital James Vandever, Assoc. Warden Lyle Craft, Hosp. Admin · filed 1990-06-19

As for Messers Vandever and Craft, not only is there no evidence that they were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical needs, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976), but the plaintiff failed to sue them in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 provides no basis to sue officials individually when the only relief sought is equitable relief they can provide solely in their official capacities.

James M. Scott, Jr. v. Flowers · filed 1990-08-20

The commissioners can expunge the subject language from the reprimand only while acting in their official capacity. Hence, there is no basis for suit against them as individuals.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity action against a state official for prospective injunctive relief allowed by the Eleventh Amendment.

Hazel Sutton, Kenneth Holland, Edith Odom, and Kevin Qualls v. Jimmy M. Evans, John H. Burke, Jr., Jimmy P. Rice, and Wi · filed 1990-11-08

However, the Court recognized that “a State official in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would he a person under § 1983 because ‘official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the state.’ ” Id. at 2311 n. 10 (emphasis added). Thus, Will leaves ample room for an action against state officials insofar as it seeks prospective relief allowed by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities, but not against them in their official capacities.

Brown v. Brown · filed 1990-12-12

Defendants are not subject to suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in their official capacity. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2311-12 (1989). However, the defendants are subject to suit to the extent plaintiff sought monetary damages from them in their individual capacity.

Individual defendants in a Section 1983 action are sued in their official capacities unless the complaint explicitly states otherwise.

Gongolewski v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, John P. McFadden Michael Delaney, Michael Sweeney, Terry · filed 1990-12-12

Individual defendants in a section 1983 action are sued in their official capacities unless the complaint explicitly states otherwise.

Section 1983 permits a plaintiff to sue a state officer individually for wrongs committed while performing official duties.

Price v. Akaka · filed 1991-03-21

Clearly, under Sec. 1983, a plaintiff may sue a state officer in his individual capacity for alleged wrongs committed by the officer in his official capacity.

Section 1983 permits an individual capacity suit against a state official when the complaint alleges that official’s own tortious conduct under color of state law, even without an express capacity designation.

Hill v. Shelander · filed 1991-03-26

The reasoning of Kolar and Akins thus suggests a corollary — namely, that in a suit where the complaint alleges the tortious conduct of an individual acting under color of state law, an individual capacity suit plainly lies, even if the plaintiff failed to spell out the defendant’s capacity in the complaint.

Section 1983 permits personal liability suits against state officials without requiring an allegation that they acted outside their official authority.

Harrington v. Grayson · filed 1991-04-30

However, the requirement that the plaintiff must somehow allege an aberration of authority to establish personal liability under § 1983 is absent in the jurisprudence to date.

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

Folse v. Delgado Community College · filed 1991-10-29

Lest there be any mistake, it is here reiterated that plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief pursuant to section 1983 against the individual defendants in their official capacity remains the subject of these proceedings.

Section 1983 permits prospective relief against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Johnson v. Wefald · filed 1991-11-15

However, this does not affect the court’s ruling that the individual defendants in their official capacities may be sued for prospective relief.

Section 1983 permits prospective equitable relief against a state official sued in an official capacity and monetary damages against the official sued in an individual capacity, but not monetary damages against the official in an official capacity.

Corum v. University of North Carolina · filed 1992-01-31

Thus, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff can only obtain prospective equitable relief against Durham sued in his official capacity and monetary damages against Durham sued in his individual capacity. Plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages under section 1983 against Durham sued in his official capacity.

Section 1983 permits damages actions against state officials in their individual capacities, and a complaint seeking damages for their alleged misconduct may be construed as an individual-capacity suit even without an express designation.

Krause v. Finch · filed 1992-01-31

Neither Will nor the eleventh amendment, however, bars actions for damages against officials in their individual capacities. See Hafer v. Melo, 112 S.Ct. 358, 362-65 (1991). Although Krause did not specify in his complaint that he was suing the defendants in their individual capacities, he sought damages for the alleged misconduct, which we construe as an action against the defendants in their individual capacities. See Price v. Akaka, 928 F.2d 824, 828-29 (9th Cir.1991).

In a Section 1983 suit against state officials, a complaint describing only their official roles does not assert individual-capacity claims, and raising that intent in a response to a motion to dismiss does not cure the complaint.

Mays v. Richards · filed 1992-06-04

Moreover, the conduct described in the complaint can only relate to the prison superintendent and the hospital administrator in their official roles as the supervisors of the employees who Mays claims caused his injuries. ... As a result, Mays's argument in his response to the motion to dismiss that he meant to include an individual-capacity claim came too late in the day to correct his faulty complaint.

Section 1983 permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities.

Nomi v. Regents for the University of Minnesota · filed 1992-06-16

Similarly, section 1983 claims may not be asserted against states, state entities, and state officials acting in their official capacities, because such defendants are not “persons” within the meaning of the statute. ... Because plaintiff seeks prospective relief from state officials acting in their official capacities, defendants are subject to suit.

A § 1983 complaint may sue a public official in an individual capacity even without expressly naming that capacity if the complaint as a whole and the course of proceedings show that intent.

Heideman v. Wirsing · filed 1992-06-23

The general rule of this circuit, then, appears to be that a complaint should be read in its entirety to determine whether the alleged wrongful conduct was carried out in an individual or an official capacity. Also relevant is the course of proceedings.

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

Akers v. Caperton · filed 1992-07-30

State officials in their official capacity are “persons” under Section 1983 for purposes of Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief since “official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the state.”

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities, including expungement of unconstitutional prison discipline from inmate records.

Wolfel v. Morris · filed 1992-09-23

The district court in this case ordered that the records of the punished inmates be cleared of any mention of the discipline imposed for circulating these petitions. As such, the district court awarded only prospective relief against the defendants. As a practical matter, the district court's order merely prevents the prison system from considering the discipline imposed in this case as part of the inmates' records in the future. As such, the district court's action is permitted pursuant to § 1983.

State officers sued in their individual capacities may be liable for damages under § 1983 even when they acted in an official capacity.

Jones v. Peter W. Vidor Gerald Stiffler R. Parteet R. Montalvo Meinke, Lt. · filed 1992-10-05

As an initial matter, we note that the complaint clearly indicates that the defendants were sued in their individual capacity. Thus, the defendants are amenable to damages under § 1983, even though their affidavits indicate that they were acting in an official capacity.

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity suits against state officers for actions taken in their official capacities.

Mayberry v. Robert N. Clement Everett Perry, Jr. · filed 1993-01-28

To the contrary, the defendants can be sued in their individual capacities, as alleged, for actions taken in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal-court suit against a State, but permits prospective injunctive relief against state agents sued in their official capacities.

Corrigan v. Rhode Island, Department of Business Regulation · filed 1993-04-14

The State is not susceptible to suit in federal court under 1983 claims, Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), however, state agents can be sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief, id. at 491 U.S. 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2311 n. 10.

Section 1983 permits prospective declaratory relief against a state official without treating the claim as an action against the state.

Pechiney Corp. v. Crystal · filed 1994-01-13

I conclude that a declaratory action for prospective relief should not be treated as an action against the state for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not subject state officials sued in their official capacities to monetary relief.

McGee v. Wilkinson · filed 1994-04-29

It is also noted that to the extent McGee sued the defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages, the state officials sued are not subject to suit for monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 & n. 10 (1989).

Section 1983 allows claims for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Williams v. Commonwealth Of Kentucky · filed 1994-05-26

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar Sec. 1983 actions brought against state officials in their official capacities seeking prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief.

Xerox Corp. v. Town of Webster · filed 1994-07-15

A State official may be sued in his or her official capacity in a 42 USC § 1983 action seeking injunctive relief "because 'official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State’ ” (Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58, 71, n 10, quoting Kentucky v Graham, 473 US 159, 167, n 14).

Section 1983 permits injunctive relief against state officials sued in their individual capacities.

Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho v. Idaho · filed 1994-12-09

Injunctive relief is available against state officials in their individual capacities under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not subject state officials sued in their official capacities to monetary relief.

Sanders v. Bradley · filed 1995-01-24

We also note that to the extent Sanders sued the defendants in their official capacity for monetary relief, the defendants are not subject to suit in that capacity under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective injunctive relief against a state official in the official’s official capacity.

Kirsch v. Smith · filed 1995-07-14

Unlike a claim for damages, a claim for prospective injunctive relief against a state official is properly asserted against that official in his official capacity.

In a § 1983 action, a defendant may be treated as sued in her individual capacity when the district court denies her qualified immunity while granting summary judgment to the county, even if the substitution order does not specify capacity.

Sanderfer v. Nichols · filed 1995-08-08

However, because the district court ordered Jansen substituted as a party defendant but denied her summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds while granting summary judgment to the county, we will assume, for purposes of this action, that the district court's intent was to substitute Jansen in her individual capacity.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to expressly plead whether a state official is sued in an individual or official capacity.

Biggs v. William C. Meadows Nurse Cartwright Superintendent Barnes Mr. Weeks · filed 1995-09-18

Because we find the majority view to be more persuasive, we hold today that a plaintiff need not plead expressly the capacity in which he is suing a defendant in order to state a cause of action under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits an individual-capacity suit against a territorial police officer even when the officer acted within the scope of employment.

Jarvis v. Government of the Virgin Islands · filed 1996-03-05

Appellant's assertion that a 1983 suit cannot be sustained against a police officer in his individual capacity if he was acting within the scope of his employment is summarily rejected since "an employee of the Territory who inflicts injury while acting in his official capacity may only be sued under section 1983 in his 'individual capacity.'" Nibbs v. Roberts, 31 V.I. 196, 208 (D.V.I. APP. 1995) (emphasis added).

A § 1983 damages complaint against state employees should not be dismissed as an official-capacity suit when the complaint clearly names them in their individual capacities.

Steven Charles Brigida, Aka: Steven C. Brigida v. Otis Thurman, Warden, California State Department of Corrections D.B. · filed 1996-04-29

The second document, which Brigida appears to have attached as an addendum to question 3, contains a caption which unambiguously states that Brigida is seeking damages against the named defendants in their individual capacity. Because a pro se complaint should be liberally construed, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing appellant's complaint.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities.

Kelley v. Troy State University · filed 1996-05-02

State agents in their official capacities, however, may be properly subject to prospective injunctive relief under § 1983 because such actions are not treated as actions against the State.

Section 1983 permits an individual-capacity suit against a state caseworker when the complaint and course of proceedings give sufficient notice of potential personal liability, even if the complaint does not expressly name that capacity.

Lesley v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 1996-08-26

Here, the complaint requests punitive damages and attorney fees and thus indicates that the plaintiffs intended to sue the caseworkers in their individual capacity. Furthermore, Maurer argued at trial and on appeal that she is entitled to qualified immunity, indicating that she had notice that she was being sued individually. Finally, the lower court’s ruling on summary judgment was based on qualified immunity, not the Eleventh Amendment. We thus construe the pleadings to permit individual suit against Maurer.

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity claims against state officials when the plaintiff’s filings indicate that they are sued in that capacity.

Hall v. Artuz · filed 1997-02-11

Thus, the Complaint and the Response to Answer together suggest that Hall is suing the officials in their individual capacities. Accordingly, I treat this action as one against the defendants in their individual capacities.

When a Section 1983 complaint is unclear about the capacity in which officials are sued, the course of proceedings can show that they are sued in both their official and individual capacities.

Matheny v. Boatright · filed 1997-03-25

Where the complaint is. unclear whether an official is sued in his individual or official capacity, or both, the Court must look to the course of the proceedings to determine the nature of the liability sought by plaintiff. ... The Court, therefore, assumes that the individually named Defendants are sued in both their official and individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits claims against government officials in both their individual and official capacities, so naming the government entity does not by itself require dismissal of individual-capacity claims.

Jackson v. East Hempfield Township Police Department · filed 1997-03-31

Under section 1983, a plaintiff may bring claims against a government official in both his individual and official capacity. ... In this case, given the fact that defendants state in their preliminary objections that this is an individual capacity suit as well as an official capacity suit, we decline to dismiss the individual officers at this stage of the proceedings.

In a § 1983 suit, a complaint need not expressly label officials as sued in their individual capacities if its allegations give them fair notice of potential personal liability.

Pieve-Marin v. Combas-Sancho · filed 1997-06-30

A plaintiffs allegations must still be sufficient to give the defendant notice that he is being sued in his individual capacity.

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

Leventhal v. Vista Unified School District · filed 1997-07-01

Accordingly, the Board members are subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief.

In a § 1983 suit, the parties’ treatment of an ambiguous complaint can show that an official is sued in his individual capacity, and an asserted qualified immunity defense supports that reading.

Ronald E. Stevens, Individually and as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Bradley Edwin Stevens, a Disabled Person v. · filed 1997-12-16

The parties in this case have admittedly operated under the assumption that Umsted was being sued in his individual capacity. This assumption is supported by the defendant’s raising of the defense of qualified immunity, which is applicable only in individual capacity suits. ... Thus, we will honor the obvious intentions of the - parties and evaluate the issue of qualified immunity as a defense to a suit brought against a government official in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 treats officials sued in their individual capacities as persons who may be sued, even if they work for a state agency.

Pendergrass v. Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission · filed 1998-06-18

The district court rejected this argument and we agree. In this case, the district court correctly construed the plaintiff’s complaint as evidencing an intent to sue the two officers in their individual capacities. Thus, even if the GNOEC were a state agency, which it is not, then this suit could still proceed against these putative state officials in their individual capacities because, in such a capacity, they are “persons” within the meaning of §1983.

Section 1983 permits an individual-capacity suit against officials even when the complaint does not expressly identify that capacity, if its allegations support personal liability.

Boyce v. Fairman · filed 1998-10-29

Viewing the complaint as a whole, in the light most favorable to the non-movant, the court concludes that an individual capacity suit does plainly lie against Malek and Moore despite Plaintiffs failure to specifically state his intention to sue these Defendants in their individual capacities.

A § 1983 complaint can give officials sufficient notice of potential personal liability by identifying them as individuals in its caption.

Ngwenyama v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan · filed 1998-12-09

The Court finds that plaintiffs complaint has sufficiently made clear that plaintiff sought to recover damages from the individual defendants directly. Plaintiff has listed defendants White and Gordon as “individuals” in the caption to the complaint filed in state court. This Court therefore concludes that defendants were sufficiently put on notice of the possibility of personal liability.

Section 1983 permits an individual-capacity claim against a teacher for an alleged Fourteenth Amendment violation despite the limits on individual-capacity suits under Title IX.

Kinman v. Omaha Public School District · filed 1999-03-19

Nothing in our decision in Kinman I, however, affects Kinman's ability to bring a section 1983 action against McDougall individually. Likewise, Gebser does not bar such an action, for the Court made it clear that that decision has no effect on an individual-capacity suit against a teacher brought under state law or under section 1983.

State officials sued in their personal and individual capacities are not entitled to official-capacity immunity from a § 1983 claim for an alleged constitutional violation.

Phillips v. Shamshad · filed 1999-04-28

Plaintiff’s complaint sues the Defendants in their personal and individual capacities; thus, they are not entitled to immunity from suit for violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity claims for injunctive relief against state officials despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Andrus v. State of Arkansas · filed 1999-11-30

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar official-capacity claims for injunctive relief against state officials.

Section 1983 treats government officials sued in their individual capacities as persons who may be held liable.

Walker v. Connecticut · filed 2000-07-07

The claims against these Defendants in their individual capacities may, however, go forward. Any government official sued in his or her individual capacity is a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against government officials in their individual capacities for actions taken under color of state law.

Washington State Republican Party v. STATE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION · filed 2000-07-27

Suit may be brought under § 1983, though, against government officials in their individual capacities for actions taken under color of state law, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985), as the Party's complaint alleges in this case.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against a territorial tax assessor in his official capacity when he assesses and collects property taxes under color of law.

Berne Corp. v. Government of the Virgin Islands · filed 2000-09-21

For purposes of this prospective injunctive relief, Martin is considered a “person” under section 1983 and he acts under color of law when he assesses and collects property taxes.

Section 1983 suits for injunctive relief may proceed against state officials in their official capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Casket Royale, Inc. v. Mississippi · filed 2000-10-31

However, as Defendants correctly note, the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit suit against the executive director and the members of the Mississippi State Board of Funeral Service in their official capacities for injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity claims against officials when the complaint shows that intent, even if it does not expressly name their individual capacities.

Wynn v. Southward · filed 2001-03-29

Considering these factors in light of Wynn’s pro se status, we conclude that Wynn may assert claims against Southward and Triggs in their individual capacities.

A pro se plaintiff may bring individual-capacity claims under § 1983 without expressly naming that capacity when the complaint supports that reading.

Wynn, Sylvester E. v. Southward, Donna · filed 2001-06-11

Considering these factors in light of Wynn’s pro se status, we conclude that Wynn may assert claims against Southward and Triggs in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits a suit against an official in her official capacity for injunctive relief.

Berry v. Scafe · filed 2001-08-13

An official may be sued in her official capacity for injunctive relief under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials sued in their official capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Welker v. Cicerone · filed 2001-11-27

Moreover, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) does not necessarily abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... However, the Eleventh Anendment provides no shield for state officials acting in their official capacities when plaintiffs request prospective injunctive relief. ... Therefore, Plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state official sued in an official capacity for prospective injunctive relief is a person under § 1983.

Bernier-Aponte v. Izquierdo-Encarnacion · filed 2002-02-19

The Court holds that a state official in his official capacity, when sued for in-junctive relief, would be a person under § 1983 because official-capacity instructions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.

An individual-capacity § 1983 claim against an official is dismissed when the plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief available against that official in an official capacity.

Cimarron Alliance Foundation v. City of Oklahoma City · filed 2002-09-13

As all relief requested against Couch is available against him only in his official capacity, see Johnson v. Board of County Commissioners, 85 F.3d 489, 493 (10th Cir.1996), CAF’s complaint as to Defendant Couch in his individual capacity is DISMISSED.

Section 1983 claims against state officials may proceed in their individual capacities when a liberal reading of the complaint shows that the plaintiff intended to sue them personally.

Baskerville v. Blot · filed 2002-09-18

When Baskerville’s complaint is liberally read, the Court can infer that plaintiff intended to assert his claims against defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective injunctive relief against a state official sued in an official capacity.

Cox v. Shelby State Community College · filed 2002-09-24

His § 1983 action, insofar as it is for injunctive relief, is not barred by Will.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a state official in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief.

Arrington v. Fuller · filed 2002-11-13

Accordingly, the court concludes that this argument by Fuller is unavailing and that a claim can be brought under § 1983 against Fuller in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity injunction against state officials who can provide the requested prospective relief.

Bond v. Aguinaldo · filed 2003-04-17

Thus, were Mr. Bond currently housed at Pinckneyville, I could enjoin Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez to provide him with treatment in conformity with federal law. As Mr. Bond is currently housed at Stateville, however, Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez are not proper defendants for official capacity suits seeking an injunction ordering treatment.

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

Gray v. McCaughtry · filed 2003-06-25

Gray’s complaint, however, does at least name the proper defendants for purposes of the injunctive relief requested here-namely, the provision of medical care and cessation of brutal treatment. Official-capacity suits against state officials for injunctive relief are permitted by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits equitable claims against state officials in their official capacities and does not require allegations of bad faith or knowing or reckless conduct for equitable claims against them individually.

Taliaferro v. Willett · filed 1976-02-17

Both arguments have been rejected, when the relief sought is equitable in nature, Hogge v. Hedrick, 391 F.Supp. 91, 96-97 (E.D.Va.1975).

Government officials sued in their official capacity may be enjoined under § 1983 even when the government entity is immune from suit.

Santiago v. Corporacion de Renovacion Urbana Y Vivienda de Puerto Rico · filed 1977-05-18

Although the Supreme Court has not ruled, the circuit decisions are falling into a pattern very like the one that governs eleventh amendment cases: while many government entities are immune from suit under § 1983, their officials, even when sued in an official capacity, do not ... share the immunity, at least when only injunctive relief is sought. ... We reaffirm our earlier decision to follow these cases.

Section 1983 permits a suit against school officials in their individual capacities when the complaint sufficiently names them in that capacity.

Graham v. Houston Independent School District · filed 1970-01-21

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis of Harkless v. Sweeny Independent School District, 300 F.Supp. 794 (S.D.Tex.1969), will be denied. The complaint in this case is sufficient to constitute suit against the named defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their individual capacities when a plaintiff seeks to reach their individual actions.

Carr v. Blanchard · filed 1992-02-12

This decision must be reconsidered, as state officials who are sued in their individual capacities are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff seeks to reach individual action.

Section 1983 permits a suit for prospective injunctive relief against a state official in an official capacity because the official is a person under the section.

Hedgepeth Ex Rel. Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2004-10-26

Ansche, however, has also named as a defendant WMATA’s General Manager in his official capacity, and ‘‘[o]f course a state official in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under § 1983 because ‘official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.’ ’’ Id. at 71 n.10 (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14 (1985)).

Section 1983 treats state officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief as persons whose claims are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

C.N. v. Wolf · filed 2005-11-28

Hence, the Individual Defendants are “persons” under § 1983, and Plaintiffs’ federal claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against those Defendants, in their official capacities, are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities for deprivations of Commerce Clause rights under color of state law.

Jones v. Gale · filed 2005-12-15

Because I have found that the Defendants, acting under color of state law, have denied the Plaintiffs rights secured to them under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against the Defendants in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including prospective in-junctive relief, and may apply for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities when only the State can provide that relief.

Rogers v. Haley · filed 2006-03-23

The only relief Rogers appears to seek is prospective injunctive relief against the defendants in their ‘individual’ and ‘officials’ capacities. Because only the State of Alabama can provide such relief and because the State is in this litigation only to the extent the defendants have been sued in their official capacities, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985), (official-capacity lawsuits are, “in all respects other than name, ... treated as a suit against the entity”), the requested relief can be provided by the defendants in their official capacities only.

Section 1983 bars damages claims against state officials in their official capacities but permits claims against them in their individual capacities.

Force v. Hunter · filed 2006-04-17

The district court’s order denies Force leave to file in forma pauperis on the basis that official capacity suits for damages are barred under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While this is correct, Force’s complaint also names the defendants in their individual capacities, see Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991) (state officials named in their individual capacities are persons for purposes of section 1983); Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185-86 (9th Cir.1999) (where a plaintiff is seeking damages against a state official, a strong presumption is created in favor of a personal-capacity suit because an official-capacity suit for damages would be barred).

Section 1983 damages claims against Virgin Islands police officers in their individual capacities do not require the legislature’s consent because recovery runs against the officers, not the territorial government.

Cruz Ocasio, Suzanna Santana and Rose L. E. Thomas v. Ethelbert Bryan, Olga Bailey and Samuel Caines · filed 1967-03-13

Since an award of damages on a recovery under the Civil Rights Act does not directly affect the Government or the public treasury, the immunity of the Government from suit is no bar to the private action.

Section 1983 permits an individual-capacity claim against a state officer when the complaint clearly seeks recovery from the officer, even if it does not expressly say “in his individual capacity.”

Stewart v. Beaufort County · filed 2007-02-06

Although the Complaint does not use the magic words “in his individual capacity,” it clearly seeks recovery from Todd Calhoun, and not from the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the court finds that the Complaint asserts a cause of action against a person, Todd Calhoun.

Section 1983 treats a state official sued in an official capacity as a person when the suit seeks prospective injunctive relief.

Flint v. Dennison · filed 2007-06-01

Will recognized one vital exception to this general rule: When sued for prospective injunctive relief, a state official in his official capacity is considered a "person" for § 1983 purposes.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity suits against state officers for injunctive or other prospective relief because they are “persons” for those suits.

McCloud v. Rosanne Kane of New York State Division of Parole · filed 2007-06-04

However, state officers sued in their official capacities are “persons” under Section 1983 in suits for injunctive or other prospective relief.

Section 1983 distinguishes individual capacity from official capacity claims in their legal standards, remedies, defenses, and responsibility for judgments, fees, and costs.

Figueras v. Autoridad De Energia Electrica · filed 2007-08-16

Furthermore, plaintiffs seem to ignore that the difference between individual capacity claims and official capacity claims under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 involves more ... than mere form . For instance, the applicable legal standards are different, the available remedies are different, the available defenses are different, and there is a significant practical difference as to whether the individual person or the governmental entity is legally responsible for paying an adverse judgment, fees, and costs.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief because they are persons under the section.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Blanco · filed 2007-10-05

A state official sued in his official capacity for injunctive relief, however, is a “person” under § 1983 “because ‘official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.’ ”

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials in their personal capacities for deprivations of a plaintiff’s rights.

Poirier v. Massachusetts Department of Correction · filed 2008-01-30

Thus, Dennehy remains suable in her personal capacity under § 1983 for damages flowing from any deprivation by her of the plaintiffs rights.

A plaintiff bringing a § 1983 action in Nebraska state court must expressly and unambiguously plead that a public official is sued in an individual capacity; otherwise, the suit is treated as against the official in an official capacity only.

Holmstedt v. York County Jail Supervisor · filed 2008-02-29

In summary, the Eighth Circuit Court has adopted the rule that in order to sue a public official in his or her individual capacity, a plaintiff in a § 1983 action must expressly and unambiguously state so in the complaint; otherwise, it will be assumed that the defendant is being sued only in his or her official capacity. Because such rule is reasonable and does not appear to conflict with Nebraska laws or rules of procedure, we conclude that such rule should be followed in Nebraska state courts.

Section 1983 permits claims for prospective injunctive relief against Virgin Islands officials acting in their official capacities.

Esso Virgin Islands, Inc. v. Government of the United States ex rel. Virgin Islands Department of Licensing & Consumer A · filed 2008-06-30

Therefore, to the extent Counts IV and V seek to prospectively enjoin the Defendants from implementing the 2004 Order, or an order similarly issued, those counts may proceed against the Commissioner acting in his official capacity.

Section 1983 permits monetary relief for federal-law violations against defendants sued in their individual capacities, but not their official capacities.

Heffner v. Murphy · filed 2008-12-22

The Motion is DENIED insofar as the Complaint seeks monetary relief for violations of federal law and in-junctive and equitable relief for continuing violations of federal law from Defendants sued in their individual capacities; ... The Motion is GRANTED insofar as the Complaint seeks monetary relief from Defendants sued in their official capacities for violations of federal law; ... All Defendants may be sued for injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to all counts of the Complaint.

In a § 1983 suit, litigating a qualified-immunity defense can establish that defendants were sued in their individual capacities when the complaint is ambiguous.

Thomas "Jack" Fitzgerald v. John P. McDaniel and Wayne "Cowboy" Morris, as Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff of Jackson County, · filed 1987-12-15

Examining the record in this case, we conclude as we did in Lundgren that because McDaniel and Morris raised, litigated, and submitted to the jury a defense premised on qualified immunity, the lawsuit was filed against them in their individual capacities. Qualified immunity is available only in an individual capacity lawsuit, not in an official capacity action.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective injunctive relief against a state official in her official capacity without requiring proof of a municipal policy or custom.

Barachkov v. 41B District Court · filed 2009-02-20

The district court relied upon Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), for the proposition that in order to state a claim against a state official in their official capacity, Appellants had to establish that Judge Davis’ acts represented an “official policy or custom” of the 41B District Court. This reliance was misplaced, as Monell, which established the circumstances under which a municipality may be held vicariously liable as a person under § 1983 for injuries inflicted by its employees pursuant to a government policy or custom, is not relevant to whether a state official, sued in her official capacity, qualifies as a “person” under § 1983.

A Section 1983 claim alleging constitutional violations by state officials may be treated as a suit against them in their individual capacities.

Hatori v. Haga · filed 1989-11-17

Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is therefore deemed to be against Defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits individual-capacity claims against prison officials.

Muhammad v. McNeil · filed 2009-06-09

Muhammad may sue appellees in their official capacity only under the RLUIPA and individually under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity suits for prospective injunctive relief, but not for retrospective relief or money damages; individual-capacity suits have no comparable limit.

ISENALUMHE v. McDuffie · filed 2010-03-17

As defendants correctly point out, § 1983 allows official-capacity suits for prospective injunctive relief, but not for retrospective relief or money damages. ... Accordingly, the Court construes all claims against defendants as individual-capacity claims, but only those seeking prospective injunctive relief as official-capacity claims.

Section 1983 permits claims against officials in their individual capacities.

Mpoy v. Fenty · filed 2012-07-02

It is permissible, moreover, for Count I to proceed only against Rhee and Presswood in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits claims for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity.

Dharod v. Los Angeles City College · filed 2013-02-19

However, given her pro se status, Dharod should have been allowed leave to amend her § 1983 claims for alleged constitutional violations against Dean Peters in his official capacity to the extent that she sought prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity suit against a state official for prospective injunctive relief, including reinstatement.

Moonin v. State · filed 2013-04-15

This last proposition is subject to one exception: where the state official is sued for prospective injunctive relief, the action is properly brought under section 1983. ... Finally, Perry is subject to suit in his official capacity because the complaint seeks injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement.

A state officer sued in an individual-capacity § 1983 claim cannot invoke sovereign immunity.

Mulero-Carrillo v. Roman-Hernandez · filed 2015-06-17

Unlike an official-capacity § 1983 claim, in which the state itself is liable for damages, an individual-capacity § 1983 claim threatens the personal assets of the state officer only. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). For that reason, a state officer sued in his personal capacity cannot invoke a defense of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief.

White v. Kansas Department of Corrections · filed 2015-06-19

Liberally construing the language of the amended complaint, as germane here, Mr. White appears to be seeking injunctive relief from the individual Defendants in their official capacities. This category of action has a solid footing in the law.

Section 1983 permits a state official to be sued in an official capacity for prospective injunctive relief.

Fisher v. Overton · filed 2005-02-10

Under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56 (1908), a state actor like Overton may be sued in his official capacity for prospective, injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits prospective declaratory or injunctive relief claims against state officials in their official capacities despite Eleventh Amendment immunity.

ABC Charters, Inc. v. Bronson · filed 2008-10-01

Likewise, the Eleventh Circuit has held that while state defendants sued in their official capacity for monetary damages under § 1983 are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, they are not immune from claims seeking prospective declaratory or injunctive relief. ... Here, the Plaintiffs’ suit against Defendant Bronson in his official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief meet the “straightforward inquiry” requirement under Verizon.

Section 1983 permits claims against government officials in their individual capacities for actions taken under color of state law.

Jay Gerow, V Wa State Gambling Comm · filed 2017-01-18

But a plaintiff may assert § 1983 claims ... against government officials in their individual capacities for actions taken under color of state law.

For injunctive relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff need not allege a state official’s personal involvement if the plaintiff identifies the challenged policy and an official who can respond to the relief sought.

California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson · filed 2017-07-13

A plaintiff seeldng injunctive relief against the State is not required to allege a named official’s personal involvement in the acts or omissions constituting the alleged constitutional violation.

Section 1983 claims seeking prospective injunctive relief against a state official cannot proceed when the alleged violations concern only past conduct.

Adams v. Ohio Univ. · filed 2018-03-12

Because all allegations in the Complaint are predicated on past conduct, this Court finds that the § 1983 claims against Professor McLaughlin in his official capacity for injunctive relief cannot proceed.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim for injunctive relief against a state officer without alleging that the officer personally committed the underlying misconduct.

Quintanilla v. Bryson · filed 2018-04-05

But Quintanilla also alleged an official-capacity claim against the Commissioner seeking injunctive relief under the Ex Parte Young Doctrine. And “[p]ersonal action by [defendants] is not a necessary condition of injunctive relief against state officers in their official capacity.” Luckey v. Harris, 860 F.2d 1012, 1015 (11th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the district court erred in failing to address Quintanilla’s official-capacity claim.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against school employees fall with the claim against the school board, while individual-capacity claims may proceed separately.

D.M. v. Bd. of Educ. Toledo Pub. Sch. · filed 2019-01-18

Because the parties agree that I must dismiss the constitutional claim against the Board, I must dismiss any official capacity claims against the individual defendants. ... To the extent, however, that plaintiffs have sued the individual defendants in their individual capacities (See Doc. 7 at 14-15), I decline to dismiss those claims.

A § 1983 complaint may be construed as suing state officials in their individual capacities when it attributes injuries to their own actions and seeks only damages.

Walton v. Doaks-Robertson · filed 2019-05-31

The Court therefore presumes that Walton intends to sue the Defendants in their individual capacities and will analyze his claims accordingly.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against state officials in their official capacities; a court may find an individual-capacity claim from the complaint and course of proceedings.

SAMMUT v. VALENZANO WINERY LLC · filed 2019-06-17

A closely related principle exists under Section 1983. That principle bars suits against state officials in their official capacities because those suits are really suits against the State, and the State is not a “person” amenable to suit under Section 1983. ... At bottom, the pleadings and Plaintiff’s representation in the course of the proceedings fairly alerted the State Defendants that he intended to sue them personally.

Section 1983 allows a defendant to be sued in an individual capacity, an official capacity, or both.

Griffin v. Cash · filed 2019-07-10

Under Section 1983, a defendant may be sued in either his individual capacity, or in his official capacity, or in both.

An official capacity claim under Section 1983 seeking prospective injunctive relief fails when the requested injunction is moot after the plaintiff leaves the prison where the alleged harm occurred.

Dean v. Bearden · filed 2019-09-17

The Court finds Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant Precythe in her official capacity must be dismissed because Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief fails.

Section 1983 permits claims against state officials sued in their individual capacities for acts taken within their official duties; sovereign immunity does not bar those claims.

DERRICK v. GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS · filed 2019-12-19

Liability under § 1983 turns not on the capacity in which defendants acted when injuring the plaintiff but on the capacity in which the state official is sued.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials sued in their individual capacities.

Alvarez v. University of Oregon · filed 2020-01-06

The Court may also hear plaintiffs claims for monetary damages brought against the individual defendants in their individual capacities.

When a Section 1983 complaint does not specify an officer’s capacity, the course of proceedings can establish that the officer had notice of an individual-capacity claim.

Roberts v. Morvac · filed 2020-01-24

Therefore, after reviewing all of these factors, the Court agrees with Judge Ingram that Morvac was on sufficient notice that Roberts brought his claims against Morvac in his individual capacity, but not his official capacity.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity claims against state officials for prospective injunctive relief from ongoing violations of federal rights.

Porter v. Crow · filed 2020-02-10

However, to the extent Plaintiff asserts official-capacity claims against Movants who are state officials and seeks prospective injunctive relief for what she alleges are ongoing violations of her federal rights, neither the § 1983’s “person” requirement nor the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for prospective injunctive relief against a state official sued in an official capacity.

Minnesota RFL Republican Farmer Labor Caucus v. Freeman · filed 2020-03-23

And there is no question § 1983 provides Plaintiffs a cause of action in view of the nature of their claims: “Of course a state official in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under § 1983 because official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.”