42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state officials are barred by sovereign immunity when prospective injunctive relief is unavailable.

Hollihan v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2016-01-20

Thus, no longer accompanied by a plea for injunctive relief, Hollihan’s § 1983 official-capacity claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Price v. Law Firm of Edwin Shorty, Jr., et · filed 2016-01-26

Louisiana has not waived its sovereign immunity, see LA. REV. STAT. ANN. 13:5106(A), and neither § 1983 nor § 1985 abrogates state sovereign immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340 (1979); Early v. S. Univ. & Agric. & Mech. College Bd. of Supervisors, 252 F. App’x 698, 700 (5th Cir. 2007).

Section 1983 does not allow an official-capacity claim against a federal Parole Commission chairperson when the claim amounts to a suit against the immune United States.

Ray v. Smoot · filed 2016-03-10

Consequently, the complaint provides no notice of an individual-capacity claim, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and this suit against Smoot in her official capacity as Parole Commission Chairperson amounts to a suit against the immune sovereign.

Section 1983 claims against a state university’s board are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, whether they seek damages or injunctive relief.

Gordon v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas · filed 2016-03-10

Gordon’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims against the defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. First, the Board of Trustees is immune from suit based on Gordon’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims, whether for damages or injunctive relief.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity unless the state waives it.

Whaley v. Schiliro · filed 2016-03-16

The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution bars claims under Section 1983 against state actors unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 suits against a state agency in federal court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Jones v. Nevada Bd of Medical Examiners · filed 2016-03-23

The district court dismissed the case with leave to amend on the ground that the Eleventh Amendment ... proscribes lawsuits against a state or its agencies in federal court, see Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100–02 (1984), and that NBME is a state agency, Buckwalter v. Nev. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 678 F.3d 737, 740 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012). Jones then declined to file an amended complaint. The district court was, of course, correct to dismiss the case.

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

Radford v. United States · filed 2016-04-01

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 do not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity, either.

Section 1983 damages claims against the U.S. Parole Commission and its officers in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity absent a waiver.

Morgan v. United States Parole Commission · filed 2016-04-04

The D.C. Circuit has long held that “sovereign immunity blocks a § 1983 claim against the Commission[,]” Settles, 429 F.3d at 1106—and this holding plainly dooms the claims for monetary damages that Morgan has brought against the Commission and against Howard in his official capacity in this case.

Section 1983 does not permit state sovereign immunity to bar claims against state actors for federal rights violations.

John v. Douglas County School District · filed 2009-11-25

While it is true that state sovereign immunity is not a defense to a § 1983 claim, there is a significant difference between state sovereign immunity and Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Section 1983 claims against a state and employees acting in official capacities are generally barred by sovereign immunity, subject to waiver or congressional abrogation.

Johnson v. Oklahoma Department of Transportation · filed 2016-04-20

And, of course, a state and its employees acting in their official capacities generally enjoy sovereign immunity from claims arising under § 1983. See Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2002). While that immunity can be waived by the State of Oklahoma or abrogated by Congress, Mr. Johnson has given us no cause to believe either possibility has been realized here.

In a Section 1983 suit, sovereign immunity bars retrospective relief against a state board, but prospective injunctive and related declaratory relief may be sought against its members in their official capacities.

Arizona Students' Ass'n v. Arizona Board of Regents · filed 2016-06-01

Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment bars any claim by the ASA for retrospective relief, including money damages, against ABOR. As discussed below, however, the ASA’s claim for prospective injunctive relief and related declaratory relief is not barred by sovereign immunity, provided such relief is sought against individual members of the Board.

Section 1983 claims may proceed against state officers under Ex parte Young when they allege an ongoing violation of federal law and seek prospective relief.

Puckett v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government · filed 2016-08-15

In the instant case, the Ex parte Young doctrine is applicable to permit suit against the individual state officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged violations of the Contract, Due Process, and Takings Clauses because the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks prospective relief.

A sheriff acting in an official capacity as an arm of the State has sovereign immunity from a § 1983 damages claim.

Jones v. Hamilton Cty. Sheriff · filed 2016-09-30

Acting as an arm of the State, the sheriff is entitled to sovereign immunity for the federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the false imprisonment claim under Ohio law.

A state agency that has neither consented to suit nor waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity is immune from a § 1983 claim.

Fieni v. Townsend · filed 2016-10-28

A § 1983 claim against DPR is barred by sovereign immunity, as DPR has neither consented to plaintiffs suit nor waived its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Sovereign immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against a Georgia deputy sheriff in his official capacity for denying a county jail inmate’s dietary request.

Lake v. Skelton · filed 2016-11-03

Lake sought declaratory relief, damages, fees, and costs for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2000cc et seq. The district court denied Major Skelton’s motion for summary judgment against Lake’s claims for damages, and Skelton filed an interlocutory appeal. We conclude that the sovereign immunity of Georgia extends to a deputy sheriff who denies a dietary request of an inmate in a county jail.

Sovereign immunity may bar claims under Section 1983.

Annan v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 2016-11-09

Upon review, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of Annan’s complaint without leave to amend, because, for the reasons stated in the district court’s order, sovereign immunity barred the majority of Annan’s claims, his remaining allegations failed to state a claim, and an amendment would have been futile.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity; a state official sued in an official capacity is immune unless the state consents or an exception applies.

Steinberg v. Elkman · filed 2016-11-17

Congress has not abrogated sovereign immunity for § 1983 claims, Dube v. State Univ. of N.Y., 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir. 1990), nor has New York waived immunity, see Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 39-40 (2d Cir. 1977). ... Applying these principles, we conclude that the district court properly determined that sovereign immunity barred Steinberg’s claims against Governor Cuomo, who was sued in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from claims for money damages against state officials in their official capacities.

Green v. Martin · filed 2016-12-14

Because Congress has not abrogated this immunity for § 1983 claims, Green’s official capacity claims seeking monetary damages are futile.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a state prison as an institution because the Eleventh Amendment makes it immune.

Vasquez v. Davis · filed 2016-12-28

But the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a § 1983 suit for damages against the state prison as an institution. Thus, the presumed target of a lawsuit invoking the continuing violation doctrine is immune from suit.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a claim against a state psychiatric center is barred.

Leon v. Rockland Psychiatric Center · filed 2017-02-08

To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to raise a claim against the RPC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that claim is similarly barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a social services department functioning as an arm of the state, its board, and board members in their official capacities are barred by state sovereign immunity.

Kincaid v. Anderson · filed 2017-03-03

Kincaid first contests the district court’s ruling that RCDSS, the Board, and the Board members in their official capacities were entitled to state sovereign immunity from all of her claims except for those brought under Title VII. ... We discern no error in the district court’s conclusion that these considerations, on balance, weigh in favor of RCDSS functioning as an arm of the state. We therefore affirm the district court’s sovereign immunity determination.

Section 1983 applies to civil rights violations by state officials and does not waive federal sovereign immunity.

Tony L. Kight, Sr. v. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia · filed 2017-03-09

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 apply to federal civil rights violations by state officials. ... These statutes do not waive federal sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against Kansas are barred because the State has not waived its sovereign immunity.

Merryfield v. State · filed 2017-03-10

The Kansas Supreme Court has held that "[t]he State of Kansas has not waived its sovereign immunity from suits seeking monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Beck v. Kansas Adult Authority, 241 Kan. 13, 21, 735 P.2d 222 (1987). Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of Merryfield's claims against the State for damages was proper.

A state agency’s general receipt of federal funds does not waive its sovereign immunity from a § 1983 suit.

Coley v. Abell · filed 2017-03-29

Brittany Coley appeals the grant of summary judgment dismissing her lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The general receipt of federal funds, which is all Coley has identified, does not waive sovereign immunity.

State prison officers sued in their official capacities are immune from monetary damages under Section 1983 when sovereign immunity applies.

Million v. Dawn Grounds · filed 2017-05-30

To the extent that Million seeks monetary damages from the appellees in their official capacities, the appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of sovereign immunity.

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

Smith v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2017-06-13

Oklahoma has not consented to be sued in federal court, see Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 152.1, and § 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989).

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

Roe v. State of Nebraska · filed 2017-06-30

Nebraska has not waived sovereign immunity nor did Congress abrogate states’ sovereign immunity in § 1983, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-67, 71 (1989), so the district court correctly dismissed these claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state are barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the state has not consented to suit.

Vulliet v. Oregon · filed 2017-06-30

The district court properly dismissed Vulliet’s claims against the State of Oregon as barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the State has not consented to suit.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity when the state has not consented to suit and Congress has not abrogated that immunity.

Hale v. Emporia State University · filed 2017-07-14

Here, defendants assert that the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs official capacity claims against the three .individual defendants (who are state officials) because the State never has consented to suit under § 1983, Congress never has abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity from those suits, and plaintiffs Complaint just seeks retroactive money damages as relief. The court agrees.

A Section 1983 claim against state officials in their official capacities may proceed despite sovereign immunity when it alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks prospective relief.

Columbian Financial Corp. v. Stork · filed 2017-07-25

We conclude that Ex parte Young applies because Columbian alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks from the federal court only prospective relief and other relief ancillary thereto.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims in federal court against New York State agencies or state officials in their official capacities because New York has not waived its sovereign immunity and Congress has not abrogated it.

Morris v. New York State Police · filed 2017-08-08

As relevant here, the State of New York has not waived its sovereign immunity from § 1983 claims in federal court. See Jackson, 63 F.Supp.3d at 220. Nor has Congress validly abrogated New York’s sovereign immunity from these claims. Id. Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims may be construed as- being asserted aghinst the individual defendants in their official capacities, see Corapl. ¶¶ 573-88, any such claims must be dismissed.

Section 1983 permits prospective relief claims against state officials sued in their official capacities despite a state sovereign immunity defense.

George v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections · filed 2017-09-29

Plaintiffs constitutional claims for prospective relief are against state agencies and individuals sued in their official capacities only. (Docs. 129 and 138; Tr. Transcript, Doc. 148 at 26:19-27:17.) These claims are therefore not barred by the state’s sovereign immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state and its agencies absent a waiver.

Zerbst v. State of South Dakota · filed 2017-10-16

The Eleventh Amendment shields the State of South Dakota from Mr. Zerbst’s § 1983 claim.

A state university agency is entitled to sovereign immunity from a Section 1983 claim.

Gordon v. University of Texas Medical Branch · filed 2017-11-01

The district court also dismissed all claims asserted against UTMB because, as a state agency, it was entitled to sovereign immunity. That conclusion is also correct.

Section 1983 claims against a school district with Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity must be dismissed.

A.V. v. Panama-Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist. · filed 2017-11-09

The District's Motion is also GRANTED on sovereign immunity grounds to the extent that Plaintiff's Fifth and Sixth Counts against the District rely either on California's Unruh Act or upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Caskey v. South Dakota State Penitentiary · filed 2017-11-09

The Supreme Court has explained that Congress, in passing 42 U.S.C. § 1983, did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. ... Thus, Caskey’s claims against the SDSP and the Department of Health, state entities, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Hanna v. LeBlanc · filed 2017-12-12

There is no indication that Louisiana has consented to have this lawsuit heard in federal court, see La. Rev. Stat. § 13:5106(A), and § 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979).

A § 1983 damages claim against a state official in an official capacity is treated as a claim against the State and is barred by sovereign immunity absent a waiver or congressional override.

Cappel v. State · filed 2017-12-22

A suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official, but, rather, a suit against the official’s office.11 Accordingly, the Cappels’ suit against Fassett is a suit against a state agency. Because a suit against a state agency is a suit against the State,12 the Cappels’ claim against Fassett is a claim against the State, and it too is barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 monetary damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

Merryfield v. Garza · filed 2018-02-09

Dr. Garza, Nelson, and Secretary Keck are all State officials. Merryfield and Allen filed claims pursuant to federal law—42 U.S.C. § 1983—seeking monetary damages from Dr. Garza, Nelson, and Keck. Accordingly, these claims were barred by sovereign immunity and the district court did not err in dismissing them.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against state entities, including state university boards.

Gillon v. University of Illinois Health & Science Systems · filed 2018-02-15

Indeed, unlike Title VII, a plaintiff cannot sue state entities for damages under §§ 1981/1983.

Section 1983 claims against a state and its officials sued in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state consents or Congress validly abrogates that immunity.

Burnham v. Com. of Mass. · filed 2018-03-12

The law is clear that Section 1983 claims against the Commonwealth is barred on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. ... Therefore, defendants' motion to dismiss Burnham's civil rights' claims against the Commonwealth and the individual defendants in their official capacities is granted.

Section 1983 claims against a state are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Burnham v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · filed 2018-03-12

The law is clear that Section 1983 claims against the Commonwealth is barred on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.

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

Mota v. O'Brien · filed 2018-03-28

Similarly, any claim for damages under Section 1983 against the Defendants in their official capacity is similarly barred by sovereign immunity.

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

Davis v. State of California · filed 2018-05-08

It does not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity and neither the states nor their agencies qualify as “persons” under § 1983.

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

Soniat v. Texas Real Estate Commission, et · filed 2018-05-09

Congress has not clearly abrogated state agencies’ sovereign immunity from suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63 (1989), or “from suits brought under the Fair Housing Act,” McCardell v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 794 F.3d 510, 522 (5th Cir. 2015).

Section 1983 does not permit suits against entities entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Gray v. Devils Lake Pub. Sch. · filed 2018-05-22

Moreover, entities entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment cannot be sued under section 1983.

Section 1983 claims against state employees in their official capacities are treated as claims against the state and are barred by sovereign immunity absent waiver or abrogation.

Shipp v. Hoffman · filed 2018-05-24

Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief from the State of Arkansas or the Arkansas Community Correction as an arm of the State of Arkansas, his section 1983 claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state agency in state court when the state has not waived sovereign immunity.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center - El Paso v. Bustillos · filed 2018-06-13

TTUHSC is entitled to sovereign immunity from the prosecution of any § 1983 action in state court no matter the allegations made to support that claim, and Bustillos has not suggested how this jurisdictional defect could be cured by amendment.

A § 1983 claim against a state agency is barred when no exception to state immunity applies.

Smith v. Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County · filed 2018-06-20

None of the exceptions to immunity appear to apply here. ... Accordingly, plaintiff’s §§1981 and 1983 claims against the Office of the Chief Judge are dismissed.

Sovereign immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim for injunctive relief against individual U.S. Parole Commission officials administering parole for D.C. Code offenders.

Morton v. United States Parole Commission · filed 2018-07-06

The Court, accordingly, concludes that sovereign immunity does not bar Morton’s claim for injunctive relief against the Commission’s chairman and its hearing examiners.

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

Fulton, Jr v. Worcester Superior Court Department · filed 2018-07-31

The Commonwealth has not consented to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in its own or the federal courts, see Woodbridge v. Worcester State Hosp., 384 Mass. 38, 44–45 (1981), and Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's immunity from suit in federal court.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's immunity from suit in federal court, so state agencies are immune from claims under it.

Collymore v. Suffolk County Sheriff Department · filed 2018-08-03

The Suffolk County Sheriff's Department and its Medical Department at South Bay, as arms of the state, are immune from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Laura v. Kenton-Walker · filed 2018-08-14

The Commonwealth has not consented to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in its own or the federal courts, see Woodbridge v. Worcester State Hosp., 384 Mass. 38, 44–45 (1981), and Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's immunity from suit in federal court.

Sovereign immunity bars an official-capacity § 1983 claim for declaratory relief when the Ex parte Young exception does not apply.

Malvester Dixon, Jr. v. G. Hall · filed 2018-10-16

The district court properly determined that Dixon’s claim for declaratory relief, to the extent it sought relief against the defendants in their official capacities, was barred by sovereign immunity, as it did not fall within the exception established in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56 (1908).

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

Rasheen v. Adner · filed 2019-01-28

Accordingly, Toliver's claims for money damages pursuant to Section 1983 against defendants in their official capacities (see Compl. at 22-23) are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and must be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, so state officials cannot be sued in their official capacities under it unless the state has waived that immunity.

Johnson v. Raemisch · filed 2019-02-14

The Supreme Court has held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979), and Johnson cites no authority for the proposition that Colorado has waived its immunity under § 1983. ... Because there is no indication that Colorado has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal suits, the district court correctly concluded that Johnson couldn’t sue the defendants in their official capacities.

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

Silva v. State · filed 2019-02-22

There is no dispute that the DOC is a nonconsenting state agency, and Congress has not abrogated Wisconsin's Eleventh Amendment immunity for plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to § 1983. ... Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff's equal protection claim against the DOC.

Sovereign immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a state university board that is an arm of the state.

Barnes v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois · filed 2019-03-25

Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment serves to bar Barnes’s § 1983 claims against the Board and the Board is entitled to judgment on this Count as a matter of law.

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

Shaw v. Kaemingk · filed 2019-03-29

Because Shaw sued defendants in their official capacity, Shaw has asserted a claim for money damages against the state of South Dakota. The state of South Dakota has not waived its sovereign immunity. Thus, the court finds that defendants are protected by sovereign immunity and are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Shaw’s official capacity claims for damages.

Section 1983 claims against a state college and its officers in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity when the college is an arm of the state.

Jones v. Pi Kappa Alpha Intl Fraternity · filed 2019-04-01

Because two of the three co-equal Fitchik factors tip in favor of finding that Ramapo is an arm of the state, it is entitled to sovereign immunity, as are its officers in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against a state corrections department because a suit against the department is effectively a suit against the state.

Cothran v. Russell · filed 2019-05-18

A suit against MDOC is, in effect, a suit against the State of Missouri, which is absolutely immune from liability under § 1983.

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

Barber v. Frakes · filed 2019-06-10

Sovereign immunity prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction over claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities.

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

Hussey v. MN State Services for the Blind · filed 2019-06-11

It is well settled that the Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against a non-consenting state because § 1983 does not abrogate state immunity.

A state controller protected by sovereign immunity cannot be held liable for monetary damages under § 1983.

Hamidi v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Local 1000 · filed 2019-06-18

Plaintiffs previously conceded, and this court so held, that "they are barred from recovering monetary damages against the state controller under the doctrine of sovereign immunity." ... The court sees no reason to upset this prior holding. Accordingly, because plaintiffs have no claims remaining against the state controller, the court will dismiss the state controller from this lawsuit.

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

McCormick v. Perdue · filed 2019-06-26

That sovereign immunity is not abrogated by § 1983.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred when the state retains Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Burke v. Erwin · filed 2019-07-02

The Eleventh Amendment, therefore, bars this § 1983 action against Defendants Fischer and Harris in their official capacities for damages.”

Maryland retains immunity from § 1983 suits because it has not waived that immunity.

Rogers v. State of Maryland · filed 2019-07-08

The State of Maryland has not waived such immunity for claims brought pursuant to § 1983.

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

Urbanski v. Lambert · filed 2019-07-12

Furthermore, section 1983 was not intended to override a state’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity when the state has not waived it and Congress has not abrogated it.

Fageroos v. Richardson · filed 2019-07-12

Magistrate Judge Brisbois correctly concluded that Fageroos’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities seeking monetary damages should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because “Plaintiff has not established that Minnesota has waived its immunity from damages for any of the claims at issue in this case, nor has Plaintiff established that Congress abrogated Minnesota’s immunity with respect to any of the claims at issue.” R&R at 7 (citing Murphy v. State of Ark., 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997)).

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

McDaniel v. The People of the State of New York · filed 2019-07-12

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting §1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Plaintiff’s §1983 claims against the People of the State of New York are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not override a state's sovereign immunity from damages suits.

Parker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2019-07-16

The Commonwealth of Kentucky has not waived its immunity, see Adams v. Morris, 90 F. App’x 856, 857 (6th Cir. 2004), and in enacting § 1983, Congress did not intend to override the traditional sovereign immunity of the states.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from damages suits in federal court.

Doe v. Spears · filed 2019-07-17

Congress has not abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity under § 1983.

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

Brown v. Bufkin · filed 2019-07-17

Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting § 1983.

State officials sued in their official capacities do not waive sovereign immunity from a § 1983 claim through alleged violations of disciplinary rules.

LaLone v. Thompson · filed 2019-07-24

Contrary to LaLone’s argument, the Defendants’ alleged actions regarding the disciplinary proceedings against LaLone do not amount to a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so an arm of the state remains immune from a damages claim under it.

Vans Story v. Washington County Health Dept. · filed 2019-07-25

Sovereign immunity has not been congressionally abrogated for claims under § 1983. ... For these reasons, I readily conclude that WCHD is an arm of the State. Moreover, the exceptions to sovereign immunity, discussed earlier, do not apply. WCHD is entitled to sovereign immunity, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.

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

Archuleta-Allodial v. State of New Mexico · filed 2019-07-25

Neither exception applies in this case. “First, the United States Supreme Court has previously held that Congress did not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits against state agencies in federal court.

Flying Horse v. Hansen · filed 2019-08-01

The Supreme Court has explained that Congress, in passing 42 U.S.C. § 1983, did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. ... Thus, Flying Horse’s claims against the DOC and the Board, which are state entities, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against a state university official in her official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity when they seek relief other than prospective injunctive relief.

CALAUTTI v. SHANAHAN · filed 2019-08-07

Citing this and other Seventh Circuit law, Defendants argue that “Calautti’s claims against Provost Robel in her official capacity for any relief other than prospective injunctive relief are barred.” (Filing No. 42 at 13.) The Court agrees, and for that reason Calautti’s § 1983 claims against Provost Robel in her official capacity is dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against New Jersey because it has not waived sovereign immunity from liability under the section.

CHAVARRIA v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2019-08-13

The State of New Jersey has not waived immunity from liability under Section 1983.

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

Sosa v. State of New Mexico · filed 2019-08-20

Neither exception applies in this case. “First, the United States Supreme Court has previously held that Congress did not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

A state correctional institution is immune from a Section 1983 suit in federal court when the state has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Curry v. Ashraf · filed 2019-08-23

The Court agrees that NBCI is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... Thus, NBCI is not subject to suit in the federal district court.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against a state agency protected by sovereign immunity.

Primm v. Tennessee Department of Correction · filed 2019-08-27

TDOC remains immune from suit for damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state agency cannot be sued under it in federal court.

Spec's Family Partners, Ltd. v. The Executive Director of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission · filed 2019-08-28

Therefore, as to Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against TABC, the Court finds it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because claims against TABC are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity bars money damages under Section 1983 against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Jones v. Gentle · filed 2019-08-28

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity on Plaintiff’s official capacity claims for money damages.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity.

Stephens v. Dillard · filed 2019-08-28

Oklahoma has not consented to be sued in federal court, see Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 152.1, and § 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989).

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred absent a waiver.

Llewellyn v. Aldi · filed 2019-08-30

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 343 (1979), and Llewellyn has alleged no facts suggesting that Connecticut has waived this immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so damages claims against a state agency or state officers in their official capacities cannot proceed in federal court.

Daly v. The Town of Dewitt · filed 2019-09-02

Given that Section 1983 did not abrogate States’ sovereign immunity, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider Section 1983 claims for damages against such defendants.

Section 1983 claims against the United States Parole Commission are barred by federal sovereign immunity, even when it administers parole for D.C. prisoners.

Redmond v. United States Parole Commission · filed 2019-09-04

Sovereign immunity therefore shields the Commission from Redmond’s § 1983 claims.

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

Radford v. Golden · filed 2019-09-05

First, the Court agrees with Judge Kearney that, as a matter of law, Mr. Radford’s claims for damages against Ms. Pickett in her official capacity are barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief are not barred by sovereign immunity, though those claims can become moot.

TALLEY v. IONATA · filed 2019-09-05

We did not clearly err in dismissing the § 1983 claims against the DOC and the individual defendants in their official capacities. ... Although any § 1983 official capacity claims for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief would not be barred, those claims are moot because Talley is no longer incarcerated at SCI Graterford which is no longer operational.

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

In re McDaniel Litigation · filed 2019-09-06

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting § 1983.

A state that has not consented to suit is immune from a Section 1983 damages claim under the Eleventh Amendment.

Wiley v. State of Oregon · filed 2019-09-09

Finally, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, the State of Oregon is immune from suit.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state agency is immune from claims under it.

Williams v. University of Texas, et.al. · filed 2019-09-10

Section 1983, Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

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

Conquistador v. Hannah · filed 2019-09-12

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 343 (1979), and Conquistador has alleged no facts suggesting that Connecticut has waived this immunity.

Section 1983 does not overcome a state agency’s sovereign immunity when the state has not consented to suit and Congress has not abrogated that immunity.

Hunt v. South Carolina State Housing Finance and Development Authority · filed 2019-09-13

Here, the State of South Carolina has not consented to suit in federal district court, see S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-20(e) (2019), and Congress has not abrogated sovereign immunity. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Section 1983 fails.

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

Lee v. Driscoll · filed 2019-09-17

As to Counts Three and Four, there is no question that Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity when it enacted Sections 1983 and 1985.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity absent a waiver or congressional override.

Thomas v. Caliri · filed 2019-09-17

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief against Defendants in their official capacities because sovereign immunity bars his claims for damages.

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

Joseph Phipps, Jr. v. Pennsylvania Department of Lab · filed 2019-09-18

This immunity does not apply if the state has waived it or Congress has set it aside, but neither has happened here. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340–41 (1979) (concluding that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity); Lavia v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 224 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2000) (“The Pennsylvania legislature has, by statute, expressly declined to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); cf. Wagstaff v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 509 F.3d 661, 664 (5th Cir. 2007) (rejecting argument that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act waived federal sovereign immunity).

Section 1983 damages claims against state officers in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

Herman v. Grier · filed 2019-09-18

Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

The Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 damages claims against state agencies.

Gonzalez, Jr. v. Jacob · filed 2019-09-23

The Eleventh Amendment bars claims against a state brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

GRAY v. TRUCILLO · filed 2019-09-24

Neither exception applies here as there is no indication New Jersey has consented to be sued, nor has Congress abrogated sovereign immunity in enacting § 1983.

Section 1983 does not waive a state's sovereign immunity from constitutional claims in federal court.

Byerly v. Governor · filed 2019-09-24

Section 1983 does not constitute such a waiver, and Idaho itself has not waived its sovereign immunity for constitutional claims.

A state corrections department has sovereign immunity from a Section 1983 action in federal court unless it expressly waives that immunity.

Burns v. Kentucky Department of Corrections · filed 2019-09-24

The Kentucky Department of Corrections, an agency of the state of Kentucky, enjoys sovereign immunity in this § 1983 federal court action because immunity has not been expressly waived.

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

MICKENS v. CLARK · filed 2019-09-24

With respect to the first exception, it is well-settled that Congress did not intend to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity by enacting § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against a state or its prison agency are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent the state's consent.

Lloyd v. Pendleton Land & Exploration, Inc. · filed 1993-07-02

Moreover, to the extent that Baranowski's complaint can be read to state separately claims against TDCJ-ID (through MSCP) and the State of Texas, we hold that such claims are legally frivolous.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective reinstatement against a university board under the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign immunity.

Jackson v. Pierre · filed 2019-09-27

Overall, the Court finds that Jackson’s argument has merit and that this Court has jurisdiction over her official-capacity claims against the Board – not the individual Board Members.

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

Uppal v. NYS Department of Health · filed 2019-09-27

NYSDOH is a state agency. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against it under § 1981, § 1983, Title I of the ADA, and the ADEA must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A juvenile training facility that is not an arm of the state cannot assert state sovereign immunity against a § 1983 action.

S.J. v. Cnty · filed 2004-06-22

In the present case, however, we are asked only to determine whether Hillcrest is an arm of the state, not whether the Hamilton County Juvenile Court itself is such. We conclude that Hillcrest is not an arm of the state.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so damages claims against a state and its officials in their official capacities are barred.

Greenberg v. State University Hospital · filed 2019-09-29

Plaintiff’s claims against SUNY and SUNY-Employees in their official capacities, seeking damages pursuant to § 1983, and Plaintiff’s damages claims against SUNY and SUNY-Employees pursuant to the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, are dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not permit suits for monetary damages against states because they are immune from those suits.

McGee, Conor v. Oshkosh Defense, LLC · filed 2019-09-30

As an initial matter, states are immune from suits for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against state agencies and state officers in their official capacities for constitutional violations are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Holestine v. R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility · filed 2019-09-30

However, to the extent Plaintiff brings claims against Entity Defendants and Individual Defendants in their official capacities under § 1983 for the violation Plaintiff’s rights under the U.S. Constitution, Defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 suits cannot proceed against the Guam International Airport Authority or its officers acting in their official capacities because the authority has sovereign immunity.

Terlaje v. Government Of Guam · filed 2019-09-30

Accordingly, Terlaje cannot maintain a § 1983 suit against the GIAA or its officers acting in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Seitz v. New York State · filed 2019-09-30

By contrast, Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents make clear that Congress has not abrogated state sovereign immunity by enacting the “self-care” provision12 of the FMLA, Title I of the ADA, 13 the ADEA, or Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate New York’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages claims, and New York has not waived that immunity.

Bell v. Nassau Intrim Finance Authority · filed 2019-09-30

Congress has not abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims under Section 1983, nor has New York waived immunity for such claims.

Section 1983 claims against Nevada and the Reno Justice Court are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Huckbottom v. State of Nevada · filed 2019-10-01

Judge Carry found that Plaintiff “cannot raise 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the State of Nevada or the Reno Justice Court based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.” (ECF No. 6 at 3.) Having reviewed the R&R and the Complaint, the Court agrees with Judge Carry.

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

Villano v. State of Connecticut Judicial Department · filed 2019-10-07

Congress did not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity when enacting Title 42, U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so state agencies are immune from suit.

JORDAN v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-10-07

Congress, in passing § 1983, did not disturb the States’ sovereign immunity.

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

Conquistador v. Cook · filed 2019-10-08

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 343 (1979), and Conquistador has alleged no facts suggesting that Connecticut has waived this immunity.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Section 1983 claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections.

GEIGER v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-10-10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against GDC are barred.

Section 1983 claims against Missouri state agencies are barred by sovereign immunity when Missouri has not waived it.

Henderson v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Family Support Divison Rehabilitation Services for the Blind · filed 2019-10-10

Missouri’s immunity from suit has not been waived for the purposes of claims under § 1981 and § 1983.

State agencies are immune from § 1983 suits in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment; consent to suit in state court does not waive that immunity.

Ashraf v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction · filed 2019-10-15

The dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint against ODRC and NCI is warranted under §1915(e), as those defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Wilkinson v. New York State · filed 2019-10-22

Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents make clear that Congress has not abrogated state sovereign immunity by enacting the ADEA or § 1983.

Sovereign immunity can bar § 1983 claims against a sheriff’s office and an officer sued in an official capacity.

Simmons v. Charleston County Sheriff's Office · filed 2019-10-22

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the bases of Eleventh Amendment immunity and immunity under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (“SCTCA”) as to all causes of action other than the § 1983 claim against Defendant Stokes in his individual capacity. ... The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the second and third causes of action should be dismissed on the basis of sovereign immunity and that the sixth cause of action should be dismissed on the basis of SCTCA immunity.

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

Salaam v. Williams · filed 2019-10-28

Accordingly, plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against the State of New York are dismissed with prejudice because this defendant is immune from suit.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, so a state agency cannot be sued in federal court without its consent.

Lavender v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections · filed 2019-10-28

Oklahoma has not consented to be sued in federal court, see Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 152.1, and § 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989).

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against the United States because it has not waived sovereign immunity for constitutional-violation claims.

Dugas v. The United States Of America · filed 2019-10-30

Accordingly, the United States is immune from suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state employees are barred by sovereign immunity when they are effectively claims against a state agency.

York v. West · filed 2019-10-30

Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review and finds that Judge Bryant correctly found that Plaintiff’s official capacity claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate all aspects of state sovereign immunity.

Bandler v. Town of Woodstock · filed 2019-10-31

Congress did not abrogate all aspects of state sovereign immunity through its enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency in federal court are barred by sovereign immunity unless the state waives immunity or an exception applies.

Lee v. Foxwell · filed 2019-10-31

Neither the State of Maryland nor DPSCS has waived immunity in federal court for claims brought pursuant to § 1983. Nor do the exceptions outlined above apply here. Accordingly, DPSCS is immune from suit and shall be dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against New York State agencies are barred by sovereign immunity in federal court.

Forjone v. The State of New York (NYS) Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 2019-11-01

As relevant here, the NYS DMV and the NYS OFS are both immune from suit in federal court under §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal court to award damages against a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Heavin v. Kentucky State University · filed 2019-11-07

Even if a § 1983 claim asserts a violation of the Constitution, the Eleventh Amendment completely bars a federal court from awarding damages against the state treasury.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred absent a waiver.

Flores v. Cook · filed 2019-11-08

Accordingly, because section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979), and because Flores has not alleged facts suggesting that Connecticut has waived immunity, any federal law claims against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed.

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

Barnard v. U.S. Government · filed 2016-03-03

Moreover, Barnard failed to show that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity from suit. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983) (“It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”); Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 2011) (§ 1983 does not waive sovereign immunity).

A plaintiff cannot collect a Section 1983 judgment against a state employee from the state when the state has not waived sovereign immunity.

Jones v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections (Previously filed February 26, 2016 as an unpublished opinion) · filed 2016-08-03

Jones' judgment against the prison guard came on a civil-rights claim under a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). ... What he does not have is a claim that can be presented in state court to have the State of Kansas pay that claim: The State has not waived its sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity bars monetary damages under § 1983 against a state controller.

Hamidi v. Service Employees International Union Local 1000 · filed 2017-02-08

Plaintiffs have conceded that they are barred from recovering monetary damages against the state controller under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. ... Accordingly, the court will grant judgment to the state controller to the extent plaintiffs seek monetary damages against her, and decide plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory and injunc-tive relief against her together with their claim for the same relief against Local 1000.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for monetary damages against a state court protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Hem v. Chelsea District Court · filed 2019-11-12

The Chelsea District court cannot be sued for monetary damages in this Court for alleged civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Section 1983 official-capacity damages claims against a state official are barred by sovereign immunity, but a claim for prospective injunctive relief may proceed.

Correia v. Jones · filed 2018-09-24

Therefore, while the Eleventh Amendment bars Correia’s official-capacity damages claims, it does not bar her claim for injunctive relief.

Section 1983 claims against Texas state agencies are barred by sovereign immunity when the state has not waived immunity.

Rosas v. Univ of Texas at San Antonio · filed 2019-11-20

We hold that Rosas’s Title VIII and §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 claims against UTSA and UT are barred by sovereign immunity, and we affirm the district court’s dismissal of those claims.

Section 1983 claims against a state or its arm are barred in federal court by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity absent a waiver.

Doe v. Board of Trustees of St. Mary's College of Maryland · filed 2019-11-20

Whether Defendant’s Motion is based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or (6), Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity prohibits the consideration of these Section 1983 claims in federal court.

State sovereign immunity bars § 1983 claims against a state facility and its employees in their official capacities when a judgment would draw on state funds.

Holloway v. Lakecrossing Mental Health Center · filed 2019-11-25

As an initial matter, Holloway cannot sue these defendants in their official capacities, nor can she sue the Lake’s Crossing facility because it is immune from suit.

A state agency that has not waived sovereign immunity is immune from a § 1983 claim in federal court.

Haughie v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2019-12-02

Neither the State of Maryland nor DPSCS has waived immunity in federal court for claims brought pursuant to § 1983. Nor do the exceptions outlined above apply here. ... Therefore, I shall dismiss all claims against DPSCS, based on sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Vartanian v. State · filed 2019-12-11

Congress has not abrogated sovereign immunity for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity from suit.

Kimbrough v. Granito · filed 2019-12-13

Congress could have, but did not, abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from suit.

Alvarado v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission · filed 2019-12-17

Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

English v. U.I.A. of Michigan · filed 2019-12-18

English has not stated a plausible claim against the U.I.A., because the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its departments unless the state has consented to suit. ... “Congress did not intend to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by passing section 1983,” Thiokol Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 987 F.2d 376, 383 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979)).

Section 1983 claims against states and their departments are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state waives immunity or Congress expressly abrogates it.

Evans 367619 v. Washington · filed 2019-12-20

Plaintiff may not maintain a § 1983 action against the Michigan Department of Corrections. Regardless of the form of relief requested, the states and their departments are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in the federal courts, unless the state has waived immunity or Congress has expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute.

State correctional agencies are immune from § 1983 suits absent state consent.

Dean v. Dravis · filed 2020-01-07

Because the Snake River Correctional Institution and the Oregon Department of Corrections are immune from suit, plaintiff's claims against these defendants must be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit for monetary damages against a state.

Walls v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2020-01-10

The only defendant Walls names is the State of Wisconsin. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states by its own citizens, including suits for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so damages claims against state officials in their official capacities require a waiver of that immunity.

Conquistador v. Syed · filed 2020-01-15

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 343 (1979), and Conquistador has alleged no facts suggesting that Connecticut has waived this immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a state are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the state waives it.

Ramos v. State of Florida · filed 2020-01-16

Absent waiver, § 1983 claims against a state are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.