42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Jones v. Browning · filed 2020-01-17

MBN is correct. Congress did not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity from suit under §§ 1983 and 1985.

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

Morgan v. Barker · filed 2020-01-17

The State of Tennessee has neither waived its immunity to this suit nor to suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 generally, see Berndt v. Tennessee, 796 F.2d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 1986), and Congress has not abrogated Tennessee’s immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979).

A state and its agencies are immune from Section 1983 suits in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Dante v. Oregon Youth Authority · filed 2020-01-21

Plaintiff names only the State of Oregon and OYA as defendants in this action. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims based on Defendants’ sovereign immunity.

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

Quinn v. NC Department of Healthcare and Family Services · filed 2020-01-22

In the present case, and given the causes of action Plaintiff has alleged (violation of Section 1983, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Title IV-D, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress), the State has not waived its sovereign immunity, nor has Congress abrogated immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on states, and damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred when the state has not waived sovereign immunity.

Tillery v. Kalinski · filed 2020-01-23

Congress has not imposed § 1983 liability upon states, and the state of North Carolina has done nothing to waive its immunity. ... To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to seek damages against Defendant Kalinski in her official capacity, these claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages claims.

Brown v. McBain · filed 2020-01-29

As already discussed above, it is well settled that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not contain an abrogation of sovereign immunity, and there is no indication that the State has waived its sovereign immunity in this case.

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars § 1983 actions against states and state officials sued in their official capacities.

Hall v. Parese · filed 2020-02-06

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, however, bars § 1983 actions against a state and state officials acting in their official capacities. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Accordingly, the State of Michigan and any officials who Hall’s complaint purports to name in their official capacities are dismissed.

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

Mayweather v. Guice · filed 2020-02-06

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

Section 1983 damages claims against a state agency and state employees in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity absent waiver.

Phillips v. Ugochukwu · filed 2020-02-11

Neither the State of Maryland nor DPSCS has waived immunity in federal court for claims brought pursuant to § 1983. Consequently, I will dismiss DPSCS as a defendant in this case. Further, Plaintiff’s claims for damages against the remaining defendants in their official capacities are dismissed, as these too are claims against the state.

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

Guajardo v. State Bar of Texas · filed 2020-02-13

Here, the Eleventh Amendment bars the district court from giving monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief against the State of Arizona. ... Guajardo’s use of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not disturb these conclusions.

A plaintiff cannot sue a state under § 1983 in federal court when the state has sovereign immunity.

McCaskill v. The People of the State of Michigan · filed 2020-02-18

Plaintiff cannot sue the State and the State is the only defendant Plaintiff names.

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

Abdul-Akbar v. State of Delaware · filed 2020-02-19

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

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits for money damages.

Garrett v. State of Missouri · filed 2020-02-20

Further, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to sue the State of Missouri, his amended complaint is also subject to dismissal because his claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A state agency that is an arm of the state may invoke sovereign immunity against a Section 1983 claim in federal court.

HABER v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT · filed 2020-02-21

NJT is an “arm of the state” such that it may invoke New Jersey’s sovereign immunity, immunizing it from Section 1983 lawsuits in federal court.

A state agency is immune from a § 1983 suit on sovereign immunity grounds.

Jackson v. Connecticut Dep't of Public Health · filed 2020-02-25

The district court correctly held that Jackson’s claims against the DPH, a state agency, must be dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds.

The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office is not an arm of the state and is not entitled to sovereign immunity from an official-capacity § 1983 damages claim.

Jones v. Cannizzaro · filed 2020-03-03

In Hudson, the Fifth Circuit held that the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office is not an arm of the state and is therefore not entitled to sovereign immunity. ... Surely, Defendant is aware that this Court is bound by Fifth Circuit precedent and cannot provide the relief it seeks. Defendant’s motion is denied, ... and the Court therefore need not address Plaintiffs argument of waiver.

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

Pevia v. Moyer · filed 2020-03-04

Plaintiff’s claim for damages asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may not proceed against defendants in their official capacity. Congress did not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Mancia v. State of New York · filed 2020-03-06

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York, the only named defendant, are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed.

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

Franco v. State of New Mexico · filed 2020-03-17

The Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 damages claims against Defendant State of New Mexico.

Local governing bodies may be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief and do not enjoy sovereign immunity.

Short v. Marlin Gusman · filed 2020-03-18

Accordingly, the OPSO does not enjoy sovereign immunity, because “[l]ocal governing bodies . . . can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).

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

Coleman v. The State of Officer John Doe · filed 2020-03-19

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed without leave to replead.

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

Rodgers v. Eisel · filed 2020-03-23

Therefore, a federal court award of § 1983 monetary relief against a state, state agency, or state official sued in an official capacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... And where the university’s state authority includes employing police officers, see M.C.L. § 390.1511, the Court concludes that Defendants Eisel and Glowacz are entitled to sovereign immunity in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not waive state sovereign immunity, and a state prison cannot be sued under it.

Peterson v. IMSI · filed 2020-03-24

Section 1983 does not constitute such a waiver, nor do §§ 1985 or 1986. ... Because the only named defendant is IMSI—a state prison—Plaintiff’s claims are implausible under the Eleventh Amendment and must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not override a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages suits in federal court.

SZEMPLE v. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY · filed 2020-03-25

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

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state agency’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from a suit for injunctive relief.

Penny Corn v. MS Dept of Public Safety, et · filed 2020-03-26

Sovereign immunity prohibits Plaintiffs from seeking injunctive relief against MDPS under their retaliation claim. MDPS has not specifically waived its immunity from suit in federal court, and “Congress has not expressly waived sovereign immunity for § 1983 suits.” ... The district court’s dismissal of this federal claim—insofar that it seeks an injunction against MDPS—was appropriate and therefore is affirmed.

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

SIDES v. GREGO · filed 2020-03-27

While a state may lose its immunity by Congressional abrogation or by waiver, id., Congress did not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity when it enacted § 1983, Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989), and the Pennsylvania legislature has expressly declined to waive its sovereign immunity by statute.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Penk v. Governor of the State of Colorado · filed 2020-03-30

And the D.C. Circuit “has held that ... section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity[.]” Ali v. District of Columbia, 278 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Therefore, this case will be dismissed.

A state agency is immune from a § 1983 suit even when the plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief.

Simpson v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-02-06

Defendants are correct — the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against SCDC, even if only for injunctive relief.

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

Jones v. Virginia State University · filed 2020-04-06

The first and third exceptions do not apply here. The Supreme Court has held that Congress did not abrogate states’ immunity through § 1983.

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

Rickie Green v. Burl · filed 2020-04-07

Upon de novo review, this court agrees that Green’s official-capacity claims were barred by sovereign immunity; and that he failed to state a claim against defendant Westmoreland.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state agency that is an arm of the state.

(PC) Smith v. CDCR · filed 2020-04-07

“Will[v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989),] establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court.” Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990). Accordingly, because the CDCR is an arm of the state, plaintiff’s claims against the CDCR are barred.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from suits for money damages.

Blamah v. State Of New York · filed 2020-04-08

Second, case law makes clear that Congress has not abrogated sovereign immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Kenneth W. Mills v. State of California · filed 2020-04-09

Here, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to sue the State of California pursuant to Section 1983, such claims are barred because the State of California is protected by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against these state entities are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Hickey v. Suffolk Superior Court · filed 2020-04-09

The claims against Suffolk Superior Court and Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office appear to be brought as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Notwithstanding, Hickey’s claims against these two state entities are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a state corrections department cannot proceed in federal court absent a waiver of sovereign immunity; a plaintiff may sue responsible prison officials instead.

Dickson v. Idaho Department of Correction · filed 2020-04-10

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot sue the Idaho Department of Correction, a state entity, in federal court. Instead, Plaintiff can sue those prison officials responsible for the alleged civil rights violations.

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

O'Connell v. Gross · filed 2020-04-10

It is well-settled law that the “enactment of § 1983 did not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the states.”

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

Oliver v. New York State Police · filed 2020-04-13

“It is well-established that New York has not consented to § 1983 suits in federal court, and that § 1983 was not intended to override a state’s sovereign immunity.” Mamot v. Bd. of Regents, 367 F. App’x 191, 192 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the NYSP are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, so claims against a state agency are barred.

Martinez v. Cunningham · filed 2020-04-13

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims cannot seek front pay in lieu of reinstatement because that compensatory relief is barred by state sovereign immunity.

Muslow v. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College · filed 2020-04-14

The Court agrees with Defendants: the Ex parte Young exception does not apply to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 official-capacity claims seeking front pay in lieu of reinstatement.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal suit against a state agency that functions as an arm of the state and has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Tate v. Zaleski · filed 2020-04-15

The Court agrees with the analysis in Williams, a decision from this Court, and likewise concludes that the Board is a state agency which functions as the alter ego of the state. As such, the Board is immune from a § 1983 suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so state officials sued for damages in their official capacities remain immune unless the state waives immunity.

Molina v. Santiago · filed 2020-04-21

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979), and Mr. Molina has alleged no facts suggesting that the State of Connecticut has waived its immunity.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 claim against a state sheriff’s department when the state has not consented to suit in federal court.

Shuler v. Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-04-22

Because South Carolina has failed to consent, the Eleventh Amendment bars this action from proceeding.

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

Williams v. Jacqueline Banks · filed 2020-04-23

Here, Williams’s use of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not disturb Mississippi’s state sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective relief against a state official under Ex parte Young when the official has a sufficient connection to enforcing the challenged law.

SUPPORT WORKING ANIMALS INC v. DESANTIS · filed 2020-04-27

But there is an exception to the exception; namely, a plaintiff may not challenge a state law by choosing whichever state official appears most convenient and haling them into federal court under the aegis of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The Attorney General, however, is a proper defendant under Ex parte Young because of her authority to enforce Amendment 13’s proscriptions.

Sovereign immunity can bar a § 1983 claim.

Mickell v. Lycoming County Central Collections Office and Administration · filed 2020-04-28

However, even reviewing the recommendation de novo, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Saporito’s conclusion that Mickell’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

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

Paul v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation · filed 2020-04-30

Because CDCR is a state agency, it is immune from civil rights claims raised pursuant to Section 1983.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent a waiver of immunity.

Sowell v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 2020-05-04

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

Section 1983 permits damages suits against individual state employees for federal constitutional violations, and state sovereign immunity does not bar those suits.

Peters v. Zhang · filed 2020-05-04

State “sovereign immunity” is no impediment to a plaintiff’s suit for damages or injunctive relief against an individual state actor for violating her rights under the federal Constitution. A federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (damages), and Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (injunctive relief), authorize such lawsuits, and Peters’s suit fits the bill. An employee of the state is not “the state” even if following state law and even if the state will indemnify the individual for damages.

Section 1983 claims against the New York State Unified Court System are barred by sovereign immunity.

Gandhi v. NYS Unified Court System · filed 2020-05-05

Specifically, Judge Stewart recommended that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s ADA, ADEA, and § 1983 claims against the NYSUCS because such claims are barred by sovereign immunity. ... Therefore, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

Section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by sovereign immunity.

Oliver v. New York State Police · filed 2020-05-15

First, the Amended Complaint continues to assert claims against the NYSP, a state agency—such claims are barred by sovereign immunity, (Dkt. No. 38, at 11–12), and Title VII claims, which were dismissed with prejudice, (id. at 12–13, 22–23).

A § 1983 civil rights suit against a state in federal court is barred by sovereign immunity unless the state waives it.

Cavallero v. State of Idaho · filed 2020-05-18

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from entertaining a civil rights lawsuit brought by a citizen against a state, unless that state waives its sovereign immunity. ... Therefore, Plaintiff cannot sue the state in this federal action.

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

Walker v. Barnett · filed 2020-05-19

Because the state of South Dakota has not waived its sovereign immunity, Walker’s claims against defendants Barnett and Holtman in their official capacities for monetary damages are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-ii) and 1915A(b)(1).

Section 1983 does not waive federal sovereign immunity, so a claim against the U.S. Secret Service under it must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Nicholas v. U.S. Secret Service · filed 2020-05-21

Nowhere does § 1983 mention the United States or any federal government entity. Nor does § 1983 expressly waive of the federal government’s sovereign immunity. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim against the U.S. Secret Service under § 1983 must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1983 does not subject the United States to liability because sovereign immunity shields it.

Allen v. United States · filed 2020-05-22

It is clear to the Court that sovereign immunity shields the United States from liability under §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986.

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

CAMP v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE · filed 2020-05-27

While a state may lose its immunity by Congressional abrogation or by waiver, Congress did not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity when it enacted § 1983, Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989), and the Pennsylvania legislature has expressly declined to waive its sovereign immunity by statute.

California’s prison agency is immune from § 1983 claims in federal court because California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Bowden v. State of California · filed 2020-06-10

CDCR has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in this case, (see CDCR Answer at 5 ¶ 8 (Docket No. 15)), and California “has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal court.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the court will grant CDCR’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff’s federal claims.

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

Graham v. New York City Department of Corrections · filed 2020-06-10

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state in a federal action the state did not remove when the state has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Entsminger v. Aranas · filed 2020-06-11

As Judge Cobb reasoned, Plaintiff cannot sue the State in this non-removed action under § 1983 because the State has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

BROWN v. ARMSTRONG · filed 2020-06-12

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

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, but a claim for prospective injunctive relief against an individual state official may proceed if properly pleaded.

Scutt v. State of Hawaii Unemployment Insurance Division · filed 2020-06-15

The State of Hawaii has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for § 1983 claims, see, e.g., Pitts v. Espinda, 2016 WL 475137, at *4 (D. Haw. Feb. 8, 2016), and Congress did not intend § 1983 to abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal civil rights action against a state unless the state waives its sovereign immunity.

Woodard v. State of Idaho · filed 2020-06-18

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot sue the state of Idaho in a civil rights action in federal court.

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

Eyre v. The City of Fairbanks · filed 2020-06-19

The Supreme Court has held that “§ 1983 does not override a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.”

Section 1983 claims against state defendants cannot proceed when sovereign immunity deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Atwood v. Strickler · filed 2020-06-29

Plaintiffs bring three claims against the State Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of Plaintiffs’ First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ... After reviewing the pleadings and arguments of counsel, this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the claims against the State Defendants under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Official-capacity damages claims under § 1983 against state employees are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Cosby v. Rusi · filed 2020-07-01

As an initial matter, any claims based on constitutional violations for money damages against the Defendants, who are state employees, in their official capacities are dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state corrections department is immune from a § 1983 claim for monetary relief in federal court.

Cyree v. TN Department of Corrections · filed 2020-07-08

Any claims against the TDOC, an agency of the State of Tennessee, are considered claims against the State itself. However, Cyree has no valid claims against the State of Tennessee under either § 1983 or Tennessee law. ... For this reason, all of Cyree’s claims are subject to dismissal because he seeks monetary relief against a Defendant that is immune from such relief.

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

Williams v. State of Nevada · filed 2020-07-09

Plaintiff may not bring 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims or state law claims against the State of Nevada because “[t]he Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting state.” Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co-op., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991); see also NRS § 41.031(3) (“The State of Nevada does not waive its immunity from suit conferred by Amendment XI of the Constitution of the United States.”).

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

Debellis v. Massing · filed 2020-07-09

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against a governor in his official capacity are barred by sovereign immunity when he lacks authority to enforce the challenged order.

6th Street Business Partners LLC v. Abbott · filed 2020-07-24

In light of Abbott, the Court concludes that Abbott lacks the enforcement connection to GA-28 required to obtain injunctive relief against him in his official capacity under Ex parte Young. See 956 F.3d at 709. The Eleventh Amendment thus bars Plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

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

Jones v. Wagner · filed 2020-07-24

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 343 (1979), and Mr. Jones alleges no facts suggesting that the state has waived immunity in this case.

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

White Hat v. Landry · filed 2020-07-30

“Section 1983 does not waive the states' sovereign immunity[.]” Id. (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 338 n.7, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed. 2d 358 (1979) ).

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for claims against states and state officials sued in their official capacity.

Downey v. Pennsylvania Department of Cor · filed 2020-08-03

Further, Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity via § 1983.

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

Smith v. DeWine · filed 2020-08-03

The State of Ohio has immunity for all claims against it because Ohio has not consented to suits in federal court nor has Congress abrogated Ohio’s immunity under § 1983.

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

Quinn v. Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2020-08-04

The Supreme Court has held that in passing Section 1983 Congress did not intend to abrogate state sovereign immunity. ... Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed.

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

Stevenson v. State of Florida · filed 2020-08-07

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

Section 1983 damages claims against Arkansas state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity because Arkansas has not waived it.

Hill v. Reed · filed 2020-08-10

As to the issues Hill raises on ... appeal, we agree with the district court that Hill’s claims for damages against the defendants in their official capacities were barred, see Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 492–94 (8th Cir. 1991) (Arkansas has not waived its sovereign immunity, so sovereign immunity barred official-capacity claims for damages against defendant state official); and that, as to the claims against defendants in their individual capacities, he failed to show that the incidents he identified were in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment right to file grievances or lawsuits, see Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984, 991–92 (8th Cir. 2013) (requirements for showing § 1983 retaliation claims in violation of First Amendment include that defendants took adverse actions against plaintiff that would chill person of ordinary firmness from continuing protected activity, and adverse actions were motivated, at least in part, by plaintiff’s exercise of protected activity); Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734, 737–38 (8th Cir. 1993) (for retaliatory transfer claim, inmate must show that “but for” impermissible retaliation, he would not have been transferred).

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's sovereign immunity from suit without its consent.

Klein v. WI Dept of Revenue · filed 2020-08-11

The Taxpayers’ federal claim, which was based upon an alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018), did not abrogate the state’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for claims against a state agency or a state official in an official capacity.

Easton v. Wilkie · filed 2020-08-12

The district court properly dismissed Easton’s claims in his first amended complaint against defendant Oregon Department of Transportation, DMV and defendant Kyes in his official capacity on the basis of sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for state officials sued in their official capacities.

Frazier v. Washington · filed 2020-08-18

The State of Michigan has not consented to be sued for civil rights actions in federal court, see Abick v. Michigan, 803 F.2d 874, 877 (6th Cir. 1986), and Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted Section 1983. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979). Consequently, to the extent that the Defendants are sued in their official capacities, they are entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Ladd v. Marchbanks · filed 2020-08-20

Notably, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for states or state officials sued in their official capacities for damages.

TD's Western Wear and Tack, LLC v. State of Tennessee · filed 2020-08-20

In this case, Plaintiff’s claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (see Doc. 1, at 13–21), and the Supreme Court has explicitly held that § 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. ... Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Tennessee and its claims against Governor Lee in his official capacity for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims for money damages against state agency employees are barred by sovereign immunity.

Thomas v. Kelley · filed 2020-08-24

Plaintiff’s official capacity claims obviously fail on the facts alleged due to sovereign immunity because he seeks money damages against an employee of a state agency.

Sovereign immunity bars damages claims purportedly brought under § 1983 against federal agencies and federal officials sued in their official capacities absent a waiver.

Widtfeldt v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 2020-08-25

Even if the Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over any claims against U.S. Defendants, sovereign immunity would bar any claims for damages presumably brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or general tort common law.

Section 1983 claims against a state corrections department are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; a plaintiff may sue the prison officials responsible for the alleged violations.

Cavallero v. State of Idaho · filed 2020-05-01

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot sue the Idaho Department of Correction, a state entity, in federal court. Instead, Plaintiff can sue those prison officials responsible for the alleged civil rights violations.

State officials sued in their official capacities are immune from Section 1983 claims for monetary damages when the state has not waived sovereign immunity.

Brakeall v. Bieber · filed 2020-08-27

Because the state of South Dakota has not waived its sovereign immunity and because Brakeall seeks monetary damages, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the claims against defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages.

Section 1983 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits against its agencies.

Loizon v. Evans · filed 2020-09-03

Moreover, Congress has not abrogated Illinois’ immunity regarding any of these causes of action. See Kroll, 934 F.2d at 909 (stating § 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity).

State agencies are immune from § 1983 suits under the Eleventh Amendment when no exception applies.

Edrosa v. Chau · filed 2020-09-11

Plaintiff has named CDCR and CCHCS in his Section 1983 claims regarding his medical care. However, both entities are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Portnoy v. State of California · filed 2020-09-15

Sergei Portnoy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. ... The district court properly dismissed Portnoy’s action against the State of California as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 claims for monetary relief against a state agency and state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.

MediGrow LLC v. Natalie M LaPrade Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission · filed 2020-09-16

In Count I, MediGrow brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by administering a discriminatory application process. ... In Counts I and II, MediGrow sues an instrumentality of the State of Maryland (the Commission) and several state officials in their official capacities (the Commission members) for monetary relief. Those claims are barred by sovereign immunity, and neither the waiver nor the Ex Parte Young exceptions apply.

Section 1983 claims against a state are barred in federal court when the state has sovereign immunity.

Gates 462283 v. Michigan, State of · filed 2020-09-17

Therefore, sovereign immunity protects the State of Michigan from the claims raised by Plaintiff and his complaint is properly dismissed.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from damages claims against state agencies.

WHEATLEY v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-09-18

Any claim for damages against the IDOC is dismissed, because damages against the IDOC would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officers sued in their individual capacities, with immunity determined under federal law.

Sosa v. Robinson · filed 2020-09-22

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the court applied the incorrect legal test to the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. Applying the correct test, we conclude that sovereign immunity does not bar the plaintiff’s claims for compensatory relief against the defendant in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so official capacity claims against state employees are barred unless the state waives immunity.

McCoy (ID 76894) v. Burris · filed 2020-09-22

Kansas has not waived immunity, and the Supreme Court has held that Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ellis v. Univ. of Kan. Med. Ctr., 163 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (10th Cir. 1998). Thus, Eleventh Amendment immunity bars plaintiff’s official capacity § 1983 claims against Mr. Hamby, Ms. Moreland, and Mr. Patton.

Section 1983 does not override state sovereign immunity for claims against a state agency in federal court.

(PC) Gleason v. CDCR · filed 2020-09-25

Moreover, Congress did not override sovereign immunity with respect to § 1983 suits.

Section 1983 official capacity claims are barred by sovereign immunity when the plaintiff seeks a declaration about past conduct rather than prospective relief.

Cole 232716 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-09-29

Because Plaintiff is not seeking prospective relief, Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity on the official capacity claims.

Section 1983 damages claims against state officials may proceed against them in their individual capacities, but sovereign immunity bars claims against them in their official capacities.

Borkowski v. Dever · filed 2020-09-30

Nonetheless, the § 1983 claims can only proceed against them in their individual capacities, as the SAO is clearly an instrument of the state.

Section 1983 permits official-capacity claims for injunctive relief against state officials, but the Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages claims in federal court absent a state waiver.

Nowlin v. Pritzker · filed 2020-10-01

However, while state officials may not be sued for money damages, they may be sued in their official capacities for injunctive relief.

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

Russell v. State of Texas · filed 2020-10-05

“Texas has not consented to be sued in federal court by resident or nonresident citizens regarding its activities to protect the welfare of children, nor has state sovereign immunity been eviscerated by Congress with the passage of section 1983.”

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

Donmez v. NYC Department of Consumer Affairs · filed 2020-10-05

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against the Baltimore Police Department are not barred by sovereign immunity at the motion to dismiss stage.

McPherson v. Baltimore Police Department · filed 2020-10-14

Having deemed the rationales in those decisions persuasive, this Court hereby adopts them as it has in other cases, and concludes that the BPD is not entitled to sovereign immunity from Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, at this stage in the litigation.

Section 1983 does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity for state entities legally inseparable from the state.

Harvey v. Neusantz · filed 2020-10-14

Both OMH and RPC are state entities which are legally inseparable from New York State: as such, they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

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

Grunewald v. Suffolk County Family Court · filed 2020-10-16

New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective injunctive relief against a state officer connected to an alleged ongoing constitutional violation despite sovereign immunity.

Domestic Violence Survivors Support Group, Inc. v. Crouch · filed 2020-10-19

However, for the reasons set forth in its October 7, 2020 memorandum opinion and order, the court concludes that, pursuant to Ex parte Young, Secretary Crouch is not protected by sovereign immunity. Like Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the initial complaint, Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the proposed amended complaint seek prospective, injunctive relief for ongoing constitutional violations based on racial discrimination, and Secretary Crouch has a sufficient connection to the state agency—here, DHHR—alleged to be responsible for the violation.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against a state court judge are barred when they are claims against a state court protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Grimm v. Cappelli · filed 2020-10-20

The Report and Recommendations also correctly reasons that any claim that Plaintiff may have against Defendant Cappelli in her “official capacity” fails to state a claim. Such a claim would be against the Fairborn Municipal Court, a state agency entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity.

Chance v. Phillips · filed 2020-10-22

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 from suits for money damages.

Ouellette v. Kansas Bureau of Investigation · filed 2020-11-02

It is well established that Congress did not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity when it enacted § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state corrections department is immune from a damages suit under it.

Nelson v. Minnesota Department of Corrections · filed 2020-11-02

Because the Minnesota Department of Corrections is the only named defendant and is immune from suit for any claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the above-entitled action is subject to dismissal.

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

Turner v. TDCJ · filed 2020-11-10

Section 1983 does not waive sovereign immunity, and there is no indication that TDCJ has waived its immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a state agency when the state has not waived its immunity.

Marshall v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-11-12

Congress has not imposed § 1983 liability upon states, and the state of North Carolina has done nothing to waive its immunity.

Section 1983 does not subject a state corrections department to Monell liability when Eleventh Amendment immunity protects it from suit.

M. Rokita, and All Others Similarly Situated v. PA DOC · filed 2020-11-20

Independent of the fact that Rokita failed to clearly articulate how such liability applies in this situation, see Petition, ¶33, the Department, as an appendage of our Commonwealth’s government, cannot be subject to Monell liability due to the protections from suit afforded to states by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so a state agency remains immune from a federal suit under the section absent waiver.

Sigma Lambda Upsilon/Senoritas Latinas Unidas Sorority, Inc. v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia · filed 2020-11-30

To the extent that SLU seeks relief against UVA under §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

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

TRACY v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC. · filed 2020-12-01

An official capacity claim against employees of the Indiana Department of Correction would in essence be against the State of Indiana. Such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

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

Jackson v. Brun · filed 2020-12-03

Although the federal government has abrogated immunity in some instances, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not one of them.

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

King v. Whitmer · filed 2020-12-07

Congress did not abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not abrogate Arkansas’s sovereign immunity, so a claim under it cannot proceed against the Arkansas Department of Education.

Doyle v. Arkansas Department of Education · filed 2020-12-09

The State of Arkansas has not waived its sovereign immunity from suit for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, nor has Congress abrogated the State’s immunity under that statute.

Section 1983 claims against a state corrections department and state officers in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity when the state has not consented to suit.

Allgood v. Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2020-12-09

Magistrate Judge Reid recommends that the Complaint be dismissed against Correctional Officer Defendants in their official capacity because Plaintiff “is effectively suing the state, which has not consented to suit, therefore, the claims are barred by sovereign immunity.” Id. Finally, Magistrate Judge Reid recommends that the Complaint be dismissed against the FDOC because “FDOC is not a proper party . . . as the State is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Jd. at 6. This Court agrees.

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

Scaperotta v. Rhue · filed 2020-12-15

To the extent Scaperotta attempts claims against the State of Connecticut, they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Lanteri v. Connecticut, 726 F. App’x 80, 80–81 (2d Cir. 2018) (concluding that plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Connecticut were barred by the Eleventh Amendment).

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

Reed v. The City of New York · filed 2020-12-15

Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against DOCCS are barred by the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

John Doe, et al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, et al. · filed 2020-12-18

Congress’s enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not waive states’ sovereign immunity to suit in federal court.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from constitutional claims for damages.

Kingston v. Maryland Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2020-12-18

Congress has not abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity for Constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, such as Plaintiffs’ claims here.

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

Doe v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner · filed 2020-12-18

Congress’s enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not waive states’ sovereign immunity to suit in federal court.

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

Cox v. Delaware Department of Corrections · filed 2020-12-28

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

An entity that is an arm of the state is entitled to sovereign immunity from a § 1983 claim.

DARDEN v. COOPER · filed 2020-12-30

Taken together, these factors support the court’s prior holding that CE is an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state official in her official capacity are barred by sovereign immunity when neither the state nor Congress has removed that immunity.

Jennings v. Abbott · filed 2020-12-31

The State of Texas has not waived its sovereign immunity from section 1983 claims. Nor has Congress abrogated sovereign immunity from section 1983 claims. ... Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims against Davidson in her official capacity.

Section 1983 does not waive state sovereign immunity, so a state official sued in her official capacity is immune from a claim for nominal damages.

John Doe, et al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2021-01-04

Congress’s enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not waive states’ sovereign immunity to suit in federal court. ... Therefore, the hospitals’ claims for nominal damages are dismissed.

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

Doe v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner · filed 2021-01-04

Congress’s enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not waive states’ sovereign immunity to suit in federal court.

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

Jones v. Virginia Commonwealth University · filed 2021-01-06

Because Congress has not abrogated nor has Virginia waived its sovereign immunity as to claims under §§ 1981 and 1983, the Court will dismiss Counts Two through Four against VCU.

Section 1983 does not override New York State’s sovereign immunity from damages claims, and the state has not waived that immunity.

Ojeda v. Mendez · filed 2021-01-07

Plaintiffs have not identified any waiver of sovereign immunity that would permit them to bring suit against the State of New York or any of its agencies based on Plaintiffs’ state court cases or legislative efforts. Indeed, “New York State has not waived its sovereign immunity from Section 1983 claims, nor did Congress override that immunity by enacting Section 1983.”

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

DOUROS v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A. · filed 2021-01-07

In enacting § 1983, Congress “expressed no intention of disturbing the states’ sovereign immunity.”

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

Morris v. Hill · filed 2021-01-11

Congress has not abrogated state sovereign immunity for claims, such as Morris’s, brought pursuant to section 1983.

Section 1983 damages claims against a state department of corrections are barred in federal court by Eleventh Amendment immunity when the state has not waived it.

Alexander v. Vermont DOC · filed 2021-01-12

In his five-page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual allegations, potential causes of action, and request for relief and correctly determined that Plaintiff's Complaint against the DOC is barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, which Vermont has not waived.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state or an arm of the state because they are protected by sovereign immunity.

(PC) Lipsey v. Mahakian · filed 2021-01-15

“Will [v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)] establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court.” Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990). Accordingly, with the exception of the ADA claims, all claims against the State, and the CDCR as an arm of the state, are barred and fail to state a claim for relief.

Section 1983 claims against tribal officials are barred by tribal sovereign immunity when the challenged acts are effectively acts of the tribe and no waiver or exception applies.

Miller v. Coyhis · filed 1995-01-30

In sum, the plaintiffs federal claim against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is barred by the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity because it is a claim against the Community.

Section 1983 damages claims against an Indian tribe and tribal officials in their official capacities are barred by tribal sovereign immunity unless that immunity is abrogated or waived.

Linneen v. Gila River Indian Community · filed 2002-01-07

Because the Linneens’ suit against the Community and against Thomas and Andrews in their official capacities is a suit against the tribe, it is barred by tribal sovereign immunity unless that immunity has been abrogated or waived.

A tribe has sovereign immunity from a § 1983 damages suit.

Garza v. Traditional Kickapoo Tribe · filed 2003-10-21

We hold at the outset that the Traditional Kickapoo Tribe of Texas is entitled to sovereign immunity in this damages suit.

A prisoner cannot recover under § 1983 for denial of an effective direct appeal when the state made appointed counsel available and supplied a trial transcript at state expense.

Ward v. Long · filed 1986-08-13

The district court correctly ruled that any failure to obtain effective appellate review cannot be ascribed to the defendants in this case. When an incarcerated appellant proceeds with his appeal pro se the state's obligation to insure full and effective appeal is satisfied by the availability of appointed counsel and the provision of a trial transcript at state expense.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim for denial of free state-court transcripts to an indigent prisoner who has not demonstrated a particularized need for them.

Autry v. Charlie T. McCullen Jr. Brenda Bass Myldred S. McKinnie · filed 1988-05-18

A state is not required to provide an indigent prisoner with free transcripts unless he demonstrates a particularized need. Jones v. Superintendent, Virginia State Farm, 460 F.2d 150, 153 (4th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 944 (1973). Despite repeated requests from the district court, Autry failed to specify why he needed the transcripts. Accordingly, the alleged failure of the defendants to provide the transcripts does not form the basis of a claim under Sec. 1983.

Section 1983 can support a claim based on delay in producing a trial transcript and record needed for an appeal.

Benton v. Taylor · filed 2000-06-27

The district court erred in finding that a delay in the production of a transcript and trial record could not state a cognizable § 1983 claim, and it failed to analyze Benton’s claim using the four factors enunciated in Rheuark.

Section 1983 cannot be used to challenge conditions of confinement in a direct criminal appeal.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2021-01-06

Johnson also seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but a direct criminal appeal is not a proper vehicle for such a challenge.

Unjustified public disclosure by a state official of information in a psychiatric report can state a Section 1983 claim for violation of the constitutional right to informational privacy.

Borucki v. Ryan · filed 1986-08-20

the Court finds that information contained in plaintiff's psychiatric report is protected by the confidentiality branch of the constitutional right of privacy. ... To conclude, the Court finds that the factual allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint make out a cause of action for deprivation of a constitutionally protected right, viz, the right of privacy.

A release-dismissal agreement bars a Section 1983 claim only if the claimant entered it voluntarily and enforcement serves the public interest.

Lynch v. City of Alhambra Joseph Molloy Russell Siberling David Barrett Michael Fisher · filed 1989-07-26

As the foregoing analysis indicates, it is apparent from the key opinions in Rumery that the release-dismissal agreement signed by Lynch is enforceable only if (1) it was entered into voluntarily; and (2) its enforcement is in the public interest. Both elements are required.

Federal law governs whether a Section 1983 claim can be waived through a release-dismissal agreement; the waiver must be informed and voluntary, and the agreement must serve the public interest.

Senator v. Baltimore County, Md. · filed 1990-11-09

After reaching an agreement with the state to drop the criminal charge, Senator signed a stipulation of dismissal for his Sec. 1983 suit. ... The question of whether a waiver of that right is permissible is also a question of federal law. ... As with other plea bargains, the defendant's decision must be an informed and voluntary one. ... Thus, defendants have met their burden to show that, in this case, the release agreement serves the public interest.

A release of § 1983 claims in exchange for dismissal of criminal charges is enforceable when voluntary, free of prosecutorial overreaching, and consistent with the public interest.

Woods v. Jay Rhodes City of Sioux City, Iowa · filed 1993-07-27

Provided the release was voluntary, there was no prosecutorial overreaching, and the relevant public interests are not adversely affected, releases should be upheld. ... We hold the release-dismissal agreement executed on September 15, 1987, was valid and enforceable.

A release-dismissal agreement barring § 1983 claims requires more than voluntary execution: the enforcing party must show a public interest justification based on facts known to the prosecutor when the agreement was reached and on the prosecutor's actual reason for seeking the release.

Cain v. Darby Borough · filed 1993-10-18

For this reason we hold that mere voluntariness is not enough to support enforcement of a release-dismissal agreement. The party seeking to enforce the agreement must show that upon balance the public interest favors enforcement. ... The standard for determining whether a release meets the public interest requirement is an objective one, based upon the facts known to the prosecutor when the agreement was reached. Additionally, the public interest reason proffered by the prosecutor must be the prosecutor's actual reason for seeking the release.

A release of Section 1983 claims is not voluntary when an official blocks access to bail and obtains the release in exchange for freedom to which the claimant is otherwise entitled.

Vallone v. Lee · filed 1993-11-10

Here, the court properly stated that if Vallone was otherwise entitled to be released on bail--though Lee had blocked his release--then, by signing the agreement to secure his freedom, Vallone did not voluntarily relinquish his right to seek redress against Lee in a subsequent civil suit.

A defendant invoking a release-dismissal agreement to bar a § 1983 action must prove that the plaintiff’s waiver was informed and voluntary.

Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Borough · filed 1993-12-13

Given the different fact scenario with respect to the Livingstones, the lack of a clear on-the-record statement of the rights the Livingstones were being asked to waive, the abbreviated discussion in chambers, and the absence of any proposed written agreement which the Livingstones could read, much less take home to review, we conclude that the defendants have not met their burden to prove that the Livingstones gave informed and voluntary consent to a waiver of their right to bring an action under section 1983.

In the Sixth Circuit, a defendant enforcing a release-dismissal agreement against a § 1983 claim must show voluntary consent, no prosecutorial overreaching, and no adverse effect on relevant public interests.

Hill v. City of Cleveland · filed 1993-12-17

Based on the foregoing, the City and its officers must establish the enforceability of the release-dismissal agreement because they are asserting the agreement as a defense to Hill's Sec. 1983 claim. Coughlen v. Coots, 5 F.3d 970, 973 (6th Cir.1993). To do this, they must show that: (1) the agreement was voluntary, (2) there is no evidence of prosecutorial overreaching, and (3) enforcement of the agreement will not adversely affect relevant public interests. Coughlen, 5 F.3d at 974. The following analysis shows that the City and its officers have met their burden and are entitled to summary judgment.

A party asserting a release-dismissal agreement as a defense to a § 1983 claim bears the burden of proving that the agreement is enforceable.

Poling v. Ferguson · filed 1995-03-17

The burden of proving the enforceability of a release-dismissal agreement is upon the party asserting it as a defense to a § 1983 claim.

A voluntary release-dismissal agreement may bar a § 1983 claim when enforcing it serves the public interest, including when the agreement is made orally on the record in municipal court.

Davis v. Ort · filed 1999-01-06

The principal question before the Court is whether a release agreement is enforceable when a defendant in a municipal court proceeding waives his right to pursue a civil rights action in exchange for pleading guilty to less serious municipal charges. ... Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff entered the release-dismissal agreement voluntarily. ... On balance, the Court finds that the public interest favors the enforcement of this release-dismissal agreement.

A voluntary release-dismissal agreement can bar a Section 1983 suit when it does not disserve the public interest.

Gordon v. City of Columbus MS · filed 2003-06-30

Nevertheless, this argument fails on the merits; the record evidences that the City’s handling of the matter was not “skewed unfairly toward the interest of its officials while disadvantaging [Erby] or the public.” ... Finally, we hold pursuant to the Berry factors that the release-dismissal agreement was voluntarily entered into.

A release-dismissal agreement does not bar a § 1983 claim merely because the criminal case was dismissed; the court must also consider voluntariness, prosecutorial misconduct, and the public interest.

Marshall v. City of Farmington Hills · filed 2012-05-01

This standard presumes that the plaintiff has received the benefit of the bargain—i.e., dismissal of the criminal case—but imposes additional requirements for finding that the release-dismissal agreement bars litigation of a § 1983 claims. Dismissal on purely equitable grounds would be inappropriate, particularly where, as here, there are allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.