42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not provide federal jurisdiction over a tribe or tribal court.

R. J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority · filed 1981-03-20

Since there is little question that the first three cited statutes do not confer federal jurisdiction over a tribe or tribal court, ... the only remaining issue is whether the ICRA gives this court jurisdiction.

Section 1983 requires state action, and Indian tribes are not states for purposes of the section.

Gould v. Gallagher · filed 1993-12-06

The complaint also failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, as no state action was alleged. The defendant was alleged to be an employee of the casino, operated by an Indian tribe. Tribes are not states for purposes of Sec. 1983.

Section 1983 preserves absolute judicial immunity from damages for judicial acts within a judge's jurisdiction, but permits a conspiracy suit against other defendants even when the judge is the only state actor.

Cairo v. Skow · filed 1981-03-25

As a state court judge, Judge Skow enjoys absolute immunity from suits for damages as a result of his actions in the exercise of his judicial authority. ... It is now well-settled that a litigant can maintain a suit under section 1983 alleging a conspiracy to violate that person’s rights, even though the only person who acted under color of state law is a judge who is immune from suit.

A judge sued under § 1983 for damages arising from judicial acts is absolutely immune, and a private defendant is subject to § 1983 liability only on well-pleaded allegations that he conspired with a state official, not on conclusory assertions of concerted action.

DiRuggiero v. Rodgers · filed 1984-09-17

The public party defendants enjoy judicial immunity to the section 1983 claim for money damages. ... We agree with the district court that the averments in the complaint do not establish a conspiracy between the public party and private party defendants. ... Thus, the district court properly dismissed the section 1983 claim insofar as it seeks monetary relief.

Section 1983 permits a claim alleging that a judicial official’s act resulted from an unlawful agreement or conspiracy.

Winograd v. Fowler · filed 1999-06-17

A valid section 1983 claim arises when it is alleged that an official act of a judicial official was the product of an unlawful agreement or conspiracy.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a school board despite state sovereign immunity when an intentional policy adopted or ratified by the board causes a deprivation of constitutional rights.

Thurmond v. Richmond County Board of Education · filed 1993-02-22

Even though the governing body of a public agency such as a school board has sovereign immunity under state law, a § 1983 claim may be asserted against it. Such claim must be based upon acts which are in implementation of an intentional policy, adopted or ratified by the governing body, which acts work deprivation of a constitutional right.

Section 1983 claims against the Government of the Virgin Islands are subject to the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act’s filing requirements.

Benjamin v. Government of the Virgin Islands · filed 1981-03-31

However, as the defendant rightly points out, a cause of action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “is essentially a tort action involving the deprivation of civil rights.” ... Therefore, the survival of plaintiffs § 1983 complaint against the defendant Government of the Virgin Islands hangs on the plaintiff’s compliance with the requirements of the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act, 33 V.I.C. §§ 3401-3415.

A governmental entity cannot assert its own cause of action under § 1983 to challenge state statutes or another state agency’s acts.

Trustees of Worcester State Hospital v. the Governor · filed 1985-07-11

Furthermore, governmental entities “cannot assert a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

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

Corpus Christi Taxpayer's Association, Cross-Appellees v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas, Cross-Appellant, State of Texas · filed 1988-08-22

However, the State is clearly immune from federal court suit under the Eleventh Amendment and is not a "person” for purposes of section 1983.

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

Sharp v. State · filed 1989-12-08

More importantly, however, the United States Supreme Court has recently decided, subsequent to the filing of this case, that a State is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983, and thus not subject to suit under the statute. ... Under Will, no relief is available to the plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Simmons v. California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement · filed 1990-06-20

In the matter at bar, it is apparent that plaintiff cannot prevail on his third cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State because the State is not a person within the meaning of the statute.

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

Johnson v. Baltimore City Police Department · filed 1991-03-01

Therefore, no suit can be maintained against the State of Maryland under section 1983.

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

Sofer v. State of N.C. Hertford Police Dept. · filed 1991-06-21

A state is not a person and therefore may not be sued under Sec. 1983.

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

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES · filed 1992-06-01

A state is not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and thus may not be sued under that statute.

Section 1983 actions may be brought against state officials but cannot be brought against a state.

Sivak v. The State of Idaho · filed 1992-06-09

The writ nevertheless must be dismissed because a section 1983 action must be brought against state officials and cannot be brought against a state.

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

Peabody v. State of Arizona · filed 1992-08-26

Peabody first sues the state of Arizona under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which affords relief against every person who, acting under color of state law, abridges rights created by the Constitution and laws of the United States. However, a state is not a person within the meaning of that statute.

A state is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action.

Davison v. State of Ark. · filed 1993-02-26

Davison's claims regarding the State's delay of his forfeiture hearings and his lawsuits, and its failure to appoint unbiased judges, were correctly dismissed because the State is not a proper party in this § 1983 action.

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

Eisenbart v. State of Wisconsin · filed 1993-04-29

For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. ... Furthermore, the State is not a proper defendant because it is not a person within the meaning of that word as used in section 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against a city acting under an established municipal policy, excludes the state as a liable person, and does not allow state law to immunize otherwise actionable conduct.

State Ex Rel. Schrunk v. Metz · filed 1993-12-22

Because the city was acting under an established municipal policy of seizing for forfeiture property allegedly involved in illegal gambling activity, it is a “person” that can be sued under section 1983. ... The state, however, is not a “person” subject to liability under section 1983. ... We note that the city cannot use Oregon Laws 1989, chapter 791, section 9(6)(a) as a shield from liability for claimant’s section 1983 claims, because conduct that is violative of section 1983 cannot be immunized by state law.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit challenging a state law against a judge who adjudicates cases under that law in a neutral capacity.

Grant v. Johnson · filed 1994-01-28

We agree with these decisions holding that judges adjudicating cases pursuant to state statutes may not be sued under Sec. 1983 in a suit challenging the state law.

Section 1983 does not authorize a claim against a state as a defendant.

Linville v. State of Hawaii · filed 1994-12-02

Therefore, Plaintiffs § 1983 claim against the State is not authorized and Plaintiff is barred from asserting it in this Court.

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

Abul A. Ali Bih Jeng, and Muti Ul Haq v. State of Maryland, Department of the Environment, and Barry O'Brian Jeffrey L. · filed 1995-03-06

Moreover, we find that the district court correctly dismissed the Sec. 1983 claim because the State is not a person subject to suit under that statute.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against a State because a State is not a person under the statute.

Betts v. State of Illinois · filed 1995-03-15

However, a State is not a "person" under Sec. 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Betts, hence, cannot sue the State of Illinois for damages under Sec. 1983.

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

Town of Esopus v. State · filed 1995-05-30

The claim also purports to state a cause of action based on 42 USC § 1983, but the State is not a "person” amenable to suit under that statute (Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58).

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

Peeples v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction · filed 1995-07-26

Dismissal of the lawsuit by the district court was proper because a state is not a "person" subject to suit under Sec. 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow claims against a state because a state is not a person under the statute.

Messa v. Rubin · filed 1995-08-16

Messa may not maintain any § 1983 claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as states are not “persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not authorize a suit against a state in its own name.

Anderson v. State of Illinois · filed 1995-12-11

Section 1983 does not authorize litigation against a state in its own name, so the suit against the State of Illinois must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction rather than on the merits.

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

Sorenson v. State of Mont. · filed 1997-02-07

We conclude that the dismissal was proper because the State of Montana is not a "person" within the meaning of section 1983, see Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), and because the Eleventh Amendment also bars federal court actions against state agencies, see Shaw v. State of Cal. Dep't of Alcoholic Beverages Control, 788 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir.1986).

Section 1983 creates no remedy against a State, even if the State waives Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona · filed 1997-03-03

The barrier was not, as the Ninth Circuit supposed, Eleventh Amendment immunity, which the State could waive. The stopper was that § 1983 creates no remedy against a State.

Section 1983 permits a county board to be sued for injunctive or mandatory relief.

Haaf v. Board of County Com'rs of Benton County · filed 1971-12-31

It is noted that the Board of Commissioners is a proper defendant in the case insofar as injunctive or mandatory relief is sought.

Section 1983 does not allow suits against a state because a state is not a person within its meaning.

Wickwire v. State · filed 1986-09-19

Since the State is not a "person” within the meaning of § 1983 and may not be sued in a § 1983 action, ... the federal fee award statute is not applicable to this case.

Section 1983 claims cannot be brought against District of Columbia agencies or departments as separate entities.

Jane Does I Through III v. District of Columbia · filed 2002-12-16

The law is clear that “agencies and departments within the District of Columbia government are not suable as separate entities.”

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against persons, so a state itself is not a proper defendant.

Hamilton's Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan · filed 2007-08-30

It is also worth noting that the state itself is not a properly named defendant, as it is shielded from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. States are protected by the Eleventh Amendment even from suits brought under section 1983, because the statute only creates a cause of action against a "person” who causes the deprivation of another's Constitutional rights.

A state is not a person subject to liability under Section 1983.

Runnels v. Newell · filed 2008-03-28

The State of Maryland was not liable under Count I because a state is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit recovery against a state because a state is not a person subject to suit under the section.

Boldt v. State · filed 1981-04-29

The petitioner is not entitled to recovery under sec. 1983, however, because the state is not subject to suit under sec. 1983.

States are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Urella v. Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n · filed 2008-05-02

Plaintiffs § 1983 claims are also barred under Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). In Will, the Supreme Court held that states are not “persons” under § 1983 and therefore may not be sued in federal or state court under that statute.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state.

Amos v. Lane · filed 1985-02-26

First, it is fundamental jurisprudence that the State is not subject to suit under the post-Civil War civil rights statutes invoked by Amos.

Section 1983 does not authorize a suit against a state because a state is not a “person” under the section.

Smith v. Kansas · filed 2008-08-29

Indeed, Supreme Court precedent establishes that the State of Kansas is not a “person” within the meaning of section 1983.

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

State v. International asset Recovery Corp. · filed 2008-11-06

Further, because plaintiff, the State of New York, is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 USC § 1983 (see Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58, 71 [1989]; Matter of Gable Transp., Inc. v State of New York, 29 AD3d 1125, 1128 [2006]; Cavanaugh v Doherty, 243 AD2d 92, 97 [1998]), defendant’s second counterclaim as asserted against plaintiff is also properly dismissed on this basis.

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

Martin v. Chugh · filed 2008-11-26

The district court properly dismissed Martin’s claim against the State of Washington because a state is not a “person” amenable to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 permits suits against government officials acting under color of state statutes or ordinances.

Eisen v. Eastman · filed 1969-11-28

The district court’s conclusion that the Civil Rights Act could not be invoked gets no support from the holding in Monroe v. Pape barring suits thereunder against municipalities. The action here was not against New York City but against Eastman. Actions against a government official acting “under color of” statutes and ordinances are what 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is mainly about.

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

Thompson v. State of NY · filed 1979-12-13

Reluctantly, this Court is bound by Quern’s limited reading of the legislative history of Section 1983 and its holding that a State is not a “person” within the meaning of the statute.

Section 1983 does not permit an action against a state as a defendant.

Lois Cleon Shelton Aubuchon v. State of Missouri · filed 1980-10-08

The State of Missouri is not a proper party to an action brought under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not authorize suits against states for violations of the Constitution or federal law.

Konar v. Illinois · filed 2009-05-14

Except for the Title IX claim, the suit is premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, yet that statute does not authorize litigation against the states for violations of the Constitution or federal law, including treaty obligations.

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

Mickens v. State · filed 2009-05-26

The Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear civil actions for alleged violations of the United States Constitution, as a state is not a “person” amenable to suit under 42 USC § 1983 (Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58 [1989]; Matter of Thomas v New York Temporary State Commn. on Regulation of Lobbying, 83 AD2d 723 [3d Dept 1981], affd 56 NY2d 656 [1982]).

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

Caroselli v. Curci · filed 2010-04-06

With respect to the State of New York, a state is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983.

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

Tocholke v. Wisconsin · filed 2011-01-20

The magistrate judge was also correct to dismiss Tocholke’s complaint against the State of Wisconsin because a state is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983, see, e.g., Haywood v. Drown, — U.S. *890-, - n. 4, 129 S.Ct. 2108, 2118 n. 4, 173 L.Ed.2d 920 (2009); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); Ill. Dunesland, Pres. Soc’y v. Illinois Dept. of Natural Res., 584 F.3d 719, 721 (7th Cir.2009), and Tocholke never sought to amend his complaint to include individual court personnel or state officials as defendants, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Abcarian v. McDonald, 617 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2010).

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a state because a state is not a “person” within its meaning.

Del Real v. State of Kansas · filed 2011-04-19

In particular, it held that (1) Mr. Del Real’s claims, apparently based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, could not be brought against the State of Kansas because the state is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983; ... Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order of dismissal for substantially the same reasons the district court gave in its thorough order entered July 27, 2010.

States are not persons who can be held liable under § 1983.

Wattie-Bey v. Attorney General's Office · filed 2011-04-21

In addition, “States are not „persons‟ within the meaning of § 1983 and, therefore, cannot be among those held liable for violations of the civil rights statute.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 697 (3d Cir. 1996).

A state is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action.

Keith Vanbenthuysen, Beverly Vanbenthuysen v. State of Florida · filed 2011-06-01

First, the complaint was subject to dismissal because the VanBenthuysens brought their claims directly against the State of Florida, which is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a regional jail because the jail is not a person within the section’s meaning.

Sweet v. Northern Neck Regional Jail · filed 2012-04-18

Since the NNRJ is not a “person” within the meaning of this authority, it can have no liability to plaintiff under § 1983 for the harm he asserts, and plaintiffs claim against it is subject to dismissal pursuant to § 1915A(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Kansas State Fair Board · filed 2012-09-04

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion justifies dismissal of the State of Kansas as a defendant, the State being an entity which may not be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat states as persons or abrogate their Eleventh Amendment immunity.

New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York · filed 2012-12-03

It is well-settled that states are not “persons” under section 1983 and, therefore, Eleventh Amendment immunity is not abrogated by that statute.

States are not persons under Section 1983, and the statute does not abrogate their Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Roberts v. New York · filed 2012-12-03

It is well-settled that states are not “persons” under section 1983 and, therefore, Eleventh Amendment immunity is not abrogated by that statute.

A state is not a person subject to suit under section 1983.

Ridgeway v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2013-01-07

The district court appropriately dismissed the Commonwealth of Kentucky because a state is not a “person” for purposes of section 1983, Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), and the Eleventh Amendment bars any claims against it.

Section 1983 provides no remedy against a state.

Hymon Walker v. Howard · filed 2013-03-14

Section 1983 does not provide for a remedy against the state; such an action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim for relief against a state because a state is not a “person” under the statute.

Moncier v. Jones · filed 2013-04-10

For relief against the State of Tennessee, Will rests upon the statutory construction of the word “person” in Section 1983 and is not based upon the Eleventh Amendment analysis because Will involved a state court action where the Eleventh Amendment does not apply. ... Thus, any claim for relief against the State of Tennessee is unavailable in this action as a matter of law.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state.

Stebbins v. Watkins · filed 2014-01-10

Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint because (1) the State of Arkansas may not be sued under § 1983, see Williams v. Missouri, 973 F.2d 599, 599–600 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam), and (2) Stebbins failed to state an actionable access-to-courts claim against defendant Watkins, see Maness v. District Court of Logan County-Northern Div., 495 F.3d 943, 944–45 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Clowers v. Lassiter, 213 S.W.3d 6, 9 (Ark. 2005).

A state is not a person that can be sued under § 1983 in state court.

Patterson v. State · filed 2014-05-13

A state is not a “person” under § 1983, and consequently cannot be a proper party to a state court action brought under that statute.

A state is not a “person” who can be sued under Section 1983.

FlemmingvStateofNewYork · filed 2014-08-07

The Court of Claims also properly dismissed claimant's 42 USC § 1983 cause of action, as a state is not a "person" under the statute (see Matter of Haywood v Drown, 556 US 729, 734 n 4 [2009]; Shelton v New York State Liquor Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, 1151 [2009]).

A state is not a “person” that can be sued under § 1983.

Flemming v. State · filed 2014-08-07

The Court of Claims also properly dismissed claimant’s 42 USC § 1983 cause of action, as a state is not a “person” under the statute (see Haywood v Drown, 556 US 729, 734 n 4 [2009]; Shelton v New York State Liq. Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, 1151 [2009]).

Section 1983 does not permit suits against a state, regardless of whether the plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory relief, or injunctive relief.

Jenkins v. Washington · filed 2014-08-29

The relevant authority makes clear that a state is not a “person” for § 1983 purposes regardless of the nature of relief sought.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a state for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief.

Anthony K. v. State · filed 2014-11-21

The State cannot be sued under § 1983 for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits suits only against persons; a state is not a person under the statute.

Rubins v. the People of the State of Texas · filed 2015-06-04

That statute permits actions to be brought only against “persons.”

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

Maisano v. Merchant · filed 2015-12-22

Because the State is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983, Maisano’s complaint failed to state a claim against it and the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over it.

A county is a person that may be sued under § 1983 even if state law does not give it capacity to sue or be sued.

Plate v. Johnson · filed 2016-02-25

Rather, it is a “person” for purposes of § 1983 litigation and a proper defendant in this case.

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

Rose v. Board of Election Commissioners · filed 2016-03-10

The state is not a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), and any argument to the effect that the state did not follow its own laws is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).

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

State v. Braverman · filed 2016-06-01

The State is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. As a matter of law, therefore, the circuit court had no authority to award fees against the State under § 1988.

Section 1983 provides no right of action against the State of Ohio because the state is not a person under the section.

Byrd v. Supreme Court of Ohio · filed 2016-08-18

This court has consistently held that there exists no right of action against the State of Ohio under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the state is not a "person" within the meaning of Section 1983.

A state is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983, and the New York Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over such claims.

Blake v. State of New York · filed 2016-12-22

To the extent that claimant asserts claims pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the state is not a "person" in that regard and the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over such claims (see Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 184-185 [1996]; Flemming v State of New York, 120 AD3d at 849).

State judges acting as neutral adjudicators are not proper defendants in Section 1983 suits for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Allen v. DeBello · filed 2017-06-27

Accordingly, the Defendants here are not proper parties to this action under Section 1983 for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Section 1983 does not treat a state as a person who may be sued.

Lumpkin v. Attorney General, State of Florida · filed 2017-06-28

First, the State of Florida is no “person” for purposes of section 1983.

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

Bradley v. Arwood · filed 2017-08-29

That element is irrelevant here because Bradley is suing Przekop-Shaw directly, see, e.g., Hickman v. Laskodi, 45 Fed.Appx. 451, 453 (6th Cir. 2002), and because Bradley’s employer, the State of Michigan, is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989).

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

Brown v. State of Vermont · filed 2018-01-12

Because Brown’s suit was against the State, and because, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a state is not a “person,” as is required to maintain the claim, summary judgment for the State was proper on her equal protection and due process claims.

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

Uschock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2018-02-13

The District Court properly concluded that the ... sole defendant, the Commonwealth, is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983, and that the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A state is not a person that may be sued under § 1983.

Neufville v. The State of Rhode Island · filed 2018-02-21

Here, the only named defendant is the State of Rhode Island, but the State of Rhode island is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Tavares v. Barnstable County Commissioners · filed 2018-03-05

Tavares names the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a defendant, but a state is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for money damages against a state because a state is not a “person” under the statute.

State Of Washington v. Lynch · filed 2018-06-25

As indicated, however, the State is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983.

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

Cramer v. State of West Virginia · filed 2018-07-02

As the magistrate judge noted, a state cannot be sued under § 1983 because it is not a “person.”

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against the Western Regional Jail because it is not a person subject to liability.

Smith v. PrimeCare Medical · filed 2018-12-06

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

Section 1983 does not allow claims directly against a state because a state is not a person under the statute.

Long v. State of Tenn. · filed 2018-12-13

But the Supreme Court has held that § 1983, the vehicle for Long’s suit, does not allow claims directly against a state.

A jail is a unit of its city or county and cannot be sued under § 1983.

Taylor v. Stearns County Jail · filed 2019-02-27

Because jails are considered units of the cities and counties involved, they are “not legal entities amenable to suit.” Owens v. Scott County Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003); see also De La Garza v. Kandiyohi Cty. Jail, Corr. Inst., 18 Fed. Appx. 436, 437 (8th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases). Thus, the Court will grant SCJ’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss Counts One and Two against it.

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

Patterson v. State of Tennessee · filed 2019-04-22

Moreover, a state is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A regional jail is not a suable entity under Section 1983.

Wilson v. Turner · filed 2019-05-14

Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on May 3, 2019, recommending that this Court dismiss Defendant South Central Regional Jail as a defendant in this action as it is not a suable entity under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eleventh Amendment. ... As Plaintiff does not object to any specific finding in the PF&R and states that he does not wish to bring this action against South Central Regional Jail, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 8), OVERRULES the Objections, (ECF No. 9), and DISMISSES South Central Regional Jail as a defendant to this action.

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

Vaughn v. State of Tennessee · filed 2019-05-15

What is more, a state is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit declaratory or injunctive relief against judges acting as neutral adjudicators rather than administrators or enforcers.

Family Civil Liberties Union v. State · filed 2019-05-29

Consequently, the state court judges here "are not proper parties to this action under Section 1983 for declaratory or injunctive relief."

A state is not a person that can be sued under § 1983.

Fields v. Tennessee Department of Corrections · filed 2019-05-30

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Pugliese v. Parker · filed 2019-06-12

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Whiteside v. Duke · filed 2019-06-24

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Whiteside thus has no claim against Defendants Pots and Williams in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a jail because a jail is not a legal entity or a person.

Becker v. Lopez · filed 2019-06-28

First, MCCC is a jail, not a legal entity or a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

States are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983.

MELEIKA v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2019-06-28

Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the State of New Jersey cannot be maintained because states are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Wilson v. Rutherford County · filed 2019-08-06

But it is well established that a jail is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Sharma v. State of Arizona · filed 2019-08-13

A State is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Hodge v. Renfrow · filed 2019-08-22

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

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

Suazo v. State of NM · filed 2019-08-26

A governmental entity such as the State of New Mexico is not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a jail that is a building rather than an individual or a policymaking unit of government.

Livergood v. Marshall Co Jail · filed 2019-08-27

Though the Marshall County Jail is where these events occurred, the jail is a building, not an individual or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Herron v. State of Tennessee · filed 2019-08-30

What is more, a state is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Kesling v. Wingrove · filed 2019-09-25

Moreover, only a “person” may be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a state is not considered a “person” under that statute. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Therefore, Plaintiff should omit the State of Idaho from any amended complaint.

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

Stevens v. Chumley · filed 2019-10-10

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Stevens, therefore, has no valid claim against the State of Tennessee.

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

Careathers v. Tennessee Department of Correction · filed 2019-10-10

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Patterson v. State of Ohio · filed 2019-10-15

It is well-established that the only named defendant–the State of Ohio–is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Greer v. Madison County Sheriff's Department · filed 2019-10-18

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on states.

Judd v. Watkins · filed 2019-10-22

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

A state is not a person subject to a § 1983 claim for money damages.

Brown v. State of Tennessee Human Resources · filed 2019-10-25

The Magistrate Judge also found that “a state is not a person against whom a § 1983 claim for money damages might be asserted.” ... Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims WITH PREJUDICE.

A jail is not an entity that can be sued under § 1983.

Barnes v. Hardin County Jail · filed 2019-10-30

The Jail is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.

A state is not a person who may be sued under § 1983.

Ingle v. Shelby County Gov. · filed 2019-11-01

Moreover, a state is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A state is not a “person” subject to liability under § 1983.

Hussein v. Minnesota · filed 2019-11-04

The State is not a “person” that can be held liable under §§ 1983 or 1985.

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

E v. Arizona, State of · filed 2019-11-05

Nor is the State a proper Defendant for purposes of the § 1983 claim.

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

Stanish v. State of Ohio/Medina County · filed 2019-11-06

The State of Ohio is not a person within the meaning of § 1983, is immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, and has not waived that immunity in § 1983 cases.

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

Moeckel v. St Louis Family Court/State of Missouri · filed 2019-09-26

The following claims are dismissed with prejudice: (1) Plaintiffs Title VII claims against Defendants Burkemper and Faddis; (2) Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the State; and (3) Plaintiff's § 1981 claims against the State.

Section 1983 does not permit a county jail to be sued as a separate person.

Daugherty v. Grayson County Detention Center · filed 2019-11-18

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

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

Cruse v. Pickens · filed 2019-11-18

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suits against states because states are not persons under the statute.

Talley v. Hope, City of Hope · filed 2019-11-26

The State of Arkansas is not a “person” subject to a section 1983 suit.

A state is not a person who may be sued under § 1983.

Hunt v. Michigan, State of · filed 2019-12-03

In addition, the State of Michigan is not a “person” who may be sued under § 1983.

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

Brooks v. Westchester County Jail · filed 2019-12-04

The Westchester County J ail is nota “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

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

Crandell v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervison · filed 2019-12-13

The OBCC, which is a jail, is not a “person” for the purpose of § 1983.

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

Bylsma v. State of Hawaii · filed 2019-12-18

First, “a State is not a person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

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

Wallace v. Smith · filed 2019-12-19

Wallace asserts his malicious prosecution claim solely against the State of Tennessee, which is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 case.

A jail is not a person subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

Olivarez (ID 68092) v. Kearny County Jail · filed 2019-12-23

The Court found in the MOSC that Plaintiff’s claims against KCJ are subject to dismissal because prison and jail facilities are not proper defendants because none is a “person” subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

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

PAULSON v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2020-01-03

The § 1983 claim against GWH must be dismissed because a jail is not a “person” under Section 1983.

A state is not a person who may be sued under § 1983.

Taylor v. State of Tennessee · filed 2020-01-07

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a county jail that is not a suable entity.

Esposito v. Towery · filed 2020-01-09

He names the Racine County Jail as the sole defendant in this action. The Jail is not a suable entity.

A jail is not a person subject to suit under § 1983; a claim against it is treated as a claim against the county.

Newman v. Muhlenberg County Detention Center · filed 2020-01-22

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

Section 1983 does not allow money damages against a state because a state is not a “person” under the statute.

Boley v. Jennings · filed 2020-01-27

To the extent that plaintiff is seeking money damages, plaintiff has failed to state a claim because the State of Missouri is not a “person.”

Section 1983 permits suits against persons, and a state is not a person under the statute.

McDermott v. State of Idaho · filed 2020-01-28

Moreover, only a “person” may be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a state is not considered a “person” under that statute.

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

Cousins v. Blue Ridge Regional Jail Authority · filed 2020-02-04

The ACDC, one of the defendants Cousins has named, is a jail and cannot qualify as a person to be sued under § 1983.

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

Talbot v. State of Utah · filed 2020-02-05

Also, Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the claims against the State, and the State is not a “person” who can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

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

Lockhart v. State of Missouri · filed 2020-02-05

Additionally, plaintiff has named only the State of Missouri as a defendant in this § 1983 action. “[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” ... Asa result, even if plaintiff had alleged the factual foundation of his complaint, the complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the State of Missouri.

A State is not a person subject to suit under § 1983, and Congress has not abrogated state sovereign immunity under the section.

Boulb v. Illinois, State of · filed 2020-02-05

Plaintiff’s suit must be dismissed because Congress has not abrogated the States’ sovereign immunity under § 1983 nor has the State of Illinois consented to suit. The Supreme Court has explicitly held that States are not persons susceptible to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a Wisconsin jail to be sued separately from its county.

Scherer v. Unknown Nurse · filed 2020-02-19

The plaintiff cannot sue the Jail under § 1983.

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

Wool v. Menard · filed 2020-03-23

Any claim for monetary damages for violation of a federal right against the State is dismissed under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim for prospective injunctive relief to proceed against a supervisor who would be responsible for carrying out that relief, even without personal involvement in the challenged decision.

Sledge v. Allen · filed 2020-01-07

For screening purposes, this claim will proceed against Defendants Allen, Berkbigler, Hartung, Herman, Jung, and Lucey. See Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 576 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that a supervisor could be a proper defendant for a claim for prospective injunctive relief from a regulation because the supervisor would be responsible for ensuring that injunctive relief was carried out, even if he was not personally involved in the decision giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims).

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

Bailey v. Decker · filed 2020-04-01

Moreover, a state is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit for money damages against a state because a state is not a “person” under the section.

Brown v. Illinois · filed 2020-04-06

Plaintiff has not named a suable entity for his § 1983 claim; he names only the State of Illinois as a defendant, which is not a “person” subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

A county is a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Mayes v. Todd County Detention Center · filed 2020-04-06

Further, Todd County is a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

A state is not a proper defendant under § 1983.

(PS) Hunt v. State of California · filed 2020-04-08

For example, Plaintiff fails to refute the finding that the State of California is not a proper defendant under § 1983, Judge Beatty is not a named defendant, or that if she was, the doctrine of judicial immunity would nevertheless bar Plaintiff’s action.

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

Hill v. City of St. Louis, MO · filed 2020-04-09

Thus, because a state is not a “person” for the purposes of § 1983 and a suit against the state is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, plaintiff's claim against the State of Missouri will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Section 1983 permits suit only against a person, and a state is not a person under the statute.

Cavallero v. State of Idaho · filed 2020-04-10

Finally, only a “person” may be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a state is not considered a “person” under that statute.

States are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

McGaskey v. State of Nevada · filed 2020-04-15

The Court dismisses with prejudice all § 1983 claims against the State of Nevada, ... as amendment would be futile. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (holding that states are not persons subject to suit under § 1983).

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a state because a state is not a person subject to suit under the section.

Clarke v. State of Nevada · filed 2020-04-15

The Court dismisses with prejudice all § 1983 claims against the State of Nevada, ... as amendment would be futile. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (holding that states are not persons subject to suit under § 1983).

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

McBroom v. State of Nevada · filed 2020-04-15

The Court dismisses with prejudice all § 1983 claims against the State of Nevada, ... as amendment would be futile. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (holding that states are not persons subject to suit under § 1983).

States are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

Cornelius v. State of Nevada · filed 2020-04-15

The Court dismisses with prejudice all § 1983 claims against the State of Nevada, ... as amendment would be futile. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (holding that states are not persons subject to suit under § 1983).

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

The Retired Public Employees of New Mexico, Inc. v. The Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico Board · filed 2020-04-17

Third, aside from Eleventh Amendment immunity, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims cannot stand because a state is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.

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

ELLERBY v. LEHIGH COUNTY PRISON · filed 2020-04-17

Even if he did, any § 1983 claims against Lehigh County Prison must be dismissed as frivolous because a prison is not a “person” amenable to suit under Section 1983.

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

Williams v. State Of Texas · filed 2020-04-29

The State of Texas is not a “person” under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a jail because a jail is not a legal entity or a person under the statute.

Brown v. New River Valley Regional Jail · filed 2020-05-05

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

A state is not a person that can be sued under § 1983.

Caraffa v. United States of America · filed 2020-05-11

Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983.”

A jail is not a person that may be sued under § 1983.

Winnett v. Khimes · filed 2020-05-11

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