42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law violated a right secured by federal law.

Williams v. Austen · filed 2020-05-01

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Tallman v. Marathon County Transport Officer · filed 2020-05-04

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the deprivation was visited upon him by a person or persons acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federally protected right.

Fletcher v. Cordell · filed 2020-05-05

To state a claim under § 1983, Fletcher must show: (1) that Defendants acted under color of state law, and (2) that the alleged wrongful conduct deprived him of a constitutionally protected federal right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

(PC) Anderson v. California Medical Facility · filed 2020-05-05

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived them of a federal right.

Cook v. Torres · filed 2020-05-12

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Gomez v. Alameda County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-05-13

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

PERKINS v. ARAMARK · filed 2020-05-14

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Taylor v. Bunch · filed 2020-05-20

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Dominguez v. People of the State of California · filed 2020-06-01

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right under color of state law.

Fisher v. Cathey · filed 2020-06-09

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was “deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege the deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Navarra v. Wilson · filed 2020-06-11

In the Ammended [sic] Complaint, plaintiff indicates he is asserting a claim under “Title 42 USC 1983” (Doc. #16, p. 4), but fails to articulate what federal constitutional or statutory right(s) he claims was violated by defendants.

Section 1983 requires a violation of a federal right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

GRAY v. HAGNER · filed 2020-06-11

To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the constitutional deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Steinke v. Pieper · filed 2020-06-16

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights; that claim arises under 42 U.S.C. §1983. “To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he or she was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that this deprivation occurred at the hands of a person or persons acting under the color of state law.” D.S. v. E. Porter Cty. Sch. Corp, 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan-Moore v. Cty. Of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)).

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law caused a violation of federal rights.

Stoddard v. Browning · filed 2020-06-17

To state a plausible civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Taufner v. Johnson · filed 2020-06-22

To proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the defendant was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Peoples v. Machuca · filed 2020-06-26

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a violation of a federal right committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Saddozai v. Esterheld · filed 2020-06-30

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of federal rights committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Holliday v. Wolff · filed 2020-06-30

The First Amended Complaint fails to state any claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to state a claim, the plaintiff must allege a violation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and show that a person acting under color of state law committed the alleged deprivation.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Williams v. Van Buren · filed 2020-07-02

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law violated a federal right.

Martinez v. Hatton · filed 2020-07-02

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right and that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Del Campo v. Gosple Rescue Mission · filed 2020-07-06

The Complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it does not allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States or that Defendant was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Famous v. Julson · filed 2020-07-08

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the deprivation was visited upon him by a person or persons acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Vincent v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2020-07-08

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Mays v. Pettis · filed 2020-07-21

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and whoever deprived him of that right was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Lucus v. Koenig · filed 2020-07-21

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege a violation of a federal right and that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Del Campo v. Gosple Rescue Mission · filed 2020-07-27

The Court also explained that the Complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it does not allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States or that Defendant was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of federal rights caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Miller v. Clarke · filed 2020-08-03

To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Harris v. Belleclaire Hotel LLC · filed 2020-08-05

For example, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). Plaintiff fails to allege either state action or a violation of federal or constitutional law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a person acting under color of state law proximately caused a violation of federal rights.

Allen v. Hummer · filed 2020-08-06

To state a plausible civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege facts plausibly showing that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Duck v. Thornburg · filed 2020-08-07

To state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. ... Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that would plausibly suggest a violation of his constitutional rights or his rights under any federal law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Ward v. Augusta C.C. Personal Property Staff Sgt. · filed 2020-08-14

To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law. ... Despite being given the opportunity to amend his complaint, Ward still fails to allege any facts against or conduct committed by the named defendant.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a state actor violated a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Casavelli v. Johanson · filed 2020-08-14

To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs must allege a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a state actor.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law proximately caused a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Wolf v. Tewalt · filed 2020-08-14

Plaintiff brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state a plausible civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Key v. Castel · filed 2020-08-17

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law violated a federal right.

Thompson v. Jeung · filed 2020-08-18

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law violated a federal right.

Gardner v. Reille · filed 2020-08-20

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Grissom v. Commonwealth of Virginia · filed 2020-08-26

To state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States.

A Section 1983 claim must allege conduct by a person acting under color of state law that deprived the plaintiff of federal rights.

James v. The State of New York · filed 2020-08-26

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege or identify any conduct, committed by a person acting under color of state law, that “deprived [plaintiff] of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege a violation of a federal right and conduct under color of state law.

Del Campo v. Dona Ana County Detention Center · filed 2020-08-27

The Court notified Plaintiff that it will not comb the record of this or other cases and act as an advocate for Plaintiff, and explained that the Complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it does not allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States or that Defendant was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Walker v. Clarke · filed 2020-08-28

To proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the defendant was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a defendant acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Sanders v. Does · filed 2020-08-31

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the conduct of a defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or by federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Lucus v. Koenig · filed 2020-09-01

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under color of state law.

(PS) Hameedullah v. White · filed 2020-09-02

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Luckert v. Gutierrez · filed 2020-09-03

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Varner v. Dept of Corr Nottoway Correctional Center · filed 2020-09-08

In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. ... In his current Complaint, Plaintiff does not identify the particular constitutional right that was violated by the defendant’s conduct.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant acted under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, and caused damage.

Tillman 264591 v. Shinn · filed 2020-09-08

To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and (4) caused him damage.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Blackwood v. Ossining Police Department · filed 2020-09-11

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Johnson v. Perez-Pantoja · filed 2020-09-18

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Bolds v. Alameda County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-09-18

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federally protected right.

Ornder v. Elkins · filed 2020-09-21

To state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federally protected right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Hayes v. Josey · filed 2020-09-24

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

McDougal v. Harriot · filed 2020-09-29

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law, including what each defendant did or failed to do.

Coolidge v. Madden · filed 2020-09-29

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. ... He identifies Warden Madden and Chief Disciplinary Officer Salcido as the sole Defendants, but he does not say what either of them did, failed to do, or how they injured him.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that someone acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Simpson v. Weycker · filed 2020-09-30

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Chavez Sol v. San Francisco County Jail Facility · filed 2020-09-30

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Keepers v. Tapio · filed 2020-10-02

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

(PC) Thompson v. Razavi · filed 2020-10-06

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that someone acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Showers v. Kosterman · filed 2020-10-07

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Farris v. Ruiz · filed 2020-10-13

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Morris v. Ascencio · filed 2020-10-13

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Gutierrez v. Johnson · filed 2020-10-13

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

McKinney v. Staeven · filed 2020-10-19

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of that right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Khan v. Payton · filed 2020-10-19

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that someone acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Jordan v. Eckstein · filed 2020-10-20

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federal right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

ERICKSON v. CITY OF NEWARK · filed 2020-10-26

to establish a prima facie case Erickson must demonstrate that (1) the Newark Police Department deprived her of a federal right, and (2) acted under color of state law in doing so.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Lucas v. Plew · filed 2020-10-27

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Parker v. Apel · filed 2020-10-28

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Riley v. Waterman · filed 2020-10-30

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that whoever deprived him of that right was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Wendricks v. Serres · filed 2020-11-02

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law violated a federal right.

Barno v. Padilla · filed 2020-11-06

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires an enforceable federal right and action under color of state law.

Segar v. Barnett · filed 2020-11-09

Because Plaintiff has not identified any federal law that creates rights enforceable under § 1983, nor has he sued a state actor, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim under § 1983 and Count Two must be dismissed.

A Section 1983 claim requires allegations that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional right while acting under color of state law.

Campbell v. Hassell · filed 2020-11-12

To state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right, and (2) they acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law violated a federal right.

Legardy v. Redon · filed 2020-11-16

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

SWANN v. SEVIER · filed 2020-11-16

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead deprivation of a federally secured right under color of state law.

Flowers v. South Beach Singles · filed 2020-11-18

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that he was (1) deprived of a right; (2) secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (3) that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law. ... As pled, the Complaint is entirely devoid of facts that could state any plausible claim for relief under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Lo v. Williams · filed 2020-11-23

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 covers alleged deprivations of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Scott v. TDCJ · filed 2020-11-25

Scott’s allegations fall within the ambit of a § 1983 claim insofar as the conduct in question allegedly deprived Scott of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law, and the conduct complained of was allegedly committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that someone acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal right.

Harper v. Giese · filed 2020-12-01

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of federal rights caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Owens v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2020-12-03

Thus, to state a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Lewis v. Brumfield · filed 2020-12-09

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Dunbar v. Arnold · filed 2020-12-15

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Hill v. Borba · filed 2020-12-15

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Hill v. Parin · filed 2020-12-15

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law.

(PC) Hill v. Bright · filed 2020-12-15

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Nash v. Gray · filed 2020-12-16

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Pearson v. Department of Corrections · filed 2020-12-17

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Pumphrey v. Contra Costa County · filed 2020-12-18

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Brown v. Kelley · filed 2020-12-18

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law.

McCoy v. Campo · filed 2020-12-18

To state a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must show that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

MAPES v. FORESTAL · filed 2020-12-22

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. ... The amended complaint states Fourteenth Amendment excessive force and lack of medical care claims against the five to six unnamed employees of Marion County Jail.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

COUSINS v. THIEL · filed 2020-12-22

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing the deprivation of a federal right by a person or entity acting under color of state law.

Hafer v. Unknown · filed 2020-12-28

To state a cognizable claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts from which it may be inferred (1) he was deprived of a federal right, and (2) a person or entity who committed the alleged violation acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Lewis v. Contra Costa County · filed 2021-01-05

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Lucas v. Bartels · filed 2021-01-06

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

A § 1983 claim must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Johnson v. Henrico County Jail/East · filed 2021-01-11

In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

TWITTY v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2021-01-12

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right and state action.

ERICKSON v. EPA · filed 2021-01-13

To the extent some of the defendants may be state employees and the Complaint attempts a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, Erickson must allege (1) the deprivation of a federal right, and (2) state action. Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995). She has not identified a federal right, and I can infer none.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Anderson v. California Department of Correction · filed 2021-01-14

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Thompson v. Jeung · filed 2021-01-14

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Asberry v. Florez · filed 2021-01-15

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Vaughan v. Stolle · filed 2021-01-21

In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law.

Mason v. Manlove · filed 2021-01-25

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 supplies a vehicle for constitutional claims, so the court measures the claim under the Federal Constitution rather than under independent standards created by the statute.

Press v. Pasadena Independent School District · filed 1971-03-04

The crux of the matter is that plaintiff dislikes the rules as they presently stand and urges this Court to rewrite them. In so doing, plaintiff relies on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute which is no more than a cross-reference to the Federal Constitution. In hearing a Section 1983 case, a Court must find its decisional standards in that same basic charter.

Section 1983 provides relief for deprivation of a constitutional right under color of state authority, but not for ordinary prison-regulation disputes lacking a constitutional violation.

United States Ex Rel. Cleggett v. Pate · filed 1964-05-28

That portion of the complaint alleging a deprivation of an opportunity to attend prison classes does not raise a constitutional question and therefore is not a proper subject for Civil Rights Act relief. ... The Warden’s exercise of his supervisory authority does not give rise to a cause of action which survives the prison discipline defense unless deprivation of a constitutional right is involved.

Section 1983 provides relief only when the challenged conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or statutory right.

Hopkins v. Board of Education · filed 1971-08-25

But he is not entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless he can demonstrate that the reasons for his termination or the way in which it was consummated by the Board deprived him of some constitutional or statutory right.

Section 1983 permits relief only when the challenged conduct rises to the level of a constitutional deprivation.

McNeil v. Blankenship · filed 1973-10-26

This allegation by no stretch of the imagination is one of such magnitude as to rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation as would empower this court to act pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide relief absent a deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law.

Watson v. Cronin · filed 1974-10-31

Accordingly, we hold that Plaintiff’s claims do not reach constitutional dimensions in any regard, that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that defendants are not liable in this matter under any constitutional provisions.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for constitutional violations, so an extradition that did not violate constitutional rights does not support relief under the statute.

Mabery v. Garrison · filed 1975-06-26

The court is of the opinion that the complaint, as it relates to the defendant Garrison, fails to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 since Mabery has failed to show that his extradition to New York violated his constitutional .rights.

Section 1983 cannot be used to bring an insubstantial federal claim into federal court to obtain pendent jurisdiction over an ordinary state-law dispute.

Ryan v. Aurora City Board of Education · filed 1976-08-02

Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on federal courts by the procedural device of filing an unsubstantial action under § 1983 and relying on the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.

Section 1983 provides a remedy only for a claim that alleges a constitutional violation; a complaint lacking a cognizable constitutional claim cannot proceed under the statute.

MacDonald v. Newsome · filed 1977-08-10

Since the complaint does not state a constitutional claim cognizable under § 1983, the motion to dismiss should be allowed.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Weissbaum v. Hannon · filed 1977-09-26

Of course, plaintiffs section 1983 claim must be dismissed because he has not suffered any “right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege facts constituting a denial of a right secured by the Constitution to state a cognizable claim.

O'grady v. City Of Montpelier · filed 1978-03-27

On the facts of this case, in order to establish a claim cognizable under Section 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, the complaint must allege facts which constitute a denial of a right secured by the Constitution.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for claims that are merely contractual and allege no deprivation of a constitutional right.

Local Union No. 370, International Union Of Operating Engineers v. Detrick · filed 1979-02-08

Unable to compel a county government to bargain collectively under federal Labor Management Relations Acts (29 U.S.C. § 152(2)), two local unions and individual plaintiffs sought to compel the same result by a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They appeal a judgment of dismissal for failure to state a claim. We affirm. ... However, the employee complaints are strictly contractual, not constitutional. Plaintiffs point to no constitutional right to achieve the goals they assembled and petitioned to discuss.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a constitutional right; a claim based solely on alleged Ninth Amendment rights therefore cannot proceed.

Charles v. Brown · filed 1980-09-04

A fortiori a § 1983 claim based solely on alleged Ninth Amendment rights must fail because there are no constitutional rights secured by that amendment.

Section 1983 provides a claim only when the alleged conduct violates a constitutional right.

Johnson v. City Of St. Paul · filed 1980-12-03

While the plaintiff in such a case might have a state law claim for false imprisonment, he has no claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires as a threshold a violation of constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not make a death caused solely by a state official's negligence actionable absent a specific constitutional violation.

Major v. Benton · filed 1981-04-13

The Supreme Court has twice granted certiorari to consider whether negligent conduct can support a ... cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and twice has found it unnecessary to decide. ... Utilizing the same threshold inquiry, we find no liability in the instant case.

Section 1983 requires an infringement of a federally protected right; a violation of state law or mere state action alone is insufficient.

Stern v. New Haven Community Schools · filed 1981-04-23

The Court notes initially that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not concerned with a violation of only state law. ... It is only when a violation of state law results in an infringement of a federally protected right that a cause of action can be maintained under this section.

Section 1983 does not provide a federal claim for a fundamentally state-law question supported only by bare allegations of a constitutional deprivation.

Cellermaster Wines, Inc. v. Chastain · filed 1982-01-25

Such allegations give this Court jurisdiction to determine whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted for the “deprivation ... of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws . . . . ” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Nevertheless, bare allegations of a constitutional deprivation cannot be used to invoke the federal court’s jurisdiction to decide a fundamentally state law question. ... ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the complaint fails to raise a substantial federal question so as to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege a constitutional violation to survive a motion to dismiss.

Williams v. Pecchio · filed 1982-07-15

It is clear that a § 1983 complaint must allege a constitutional violation in order to withstand a motion to dismiss.

A § 1983 claim alleging Eighth Amendment violations fails when no constitutional violation is shown.

Pearl v. Lt. Rhodes and Captain McHan Employees, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction · filed 1983-07-22

Pearl filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the eighth amendment. He seeks injunctive and compensatory relief. ... We agree that no constitutional violation was shown, ... and affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion.

Defamation alone is not actionable under Section 1983.

Hopper v. Hayes · filed 1983-10-14

An action for defamation based upon Section 1983 is not cognizable in this court.

Section 1983 provides no remedy for enforcement of an ordinance unconstitutional solely under the Supremacy Clause when the ordinance does not violate due process.

Pirolo v. City of Clearwater · filed 1983-11-04

The sole cause of the unconstitutionality was the supremacy clause. Therefore Pirolo is not entitled to a § 1983 remedy for enforcement of the ordinances.

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for a prison guard's threat of physical violence absent additional facts connecting the threat to a federal right.

Ricketts v. Derello · filed 1983-11-22

Ricketts’s claim, simply, is that he was threatened with physical violence. Absent other factors, § 1983 does not furnish a remedy for such a claim.

Section 1983 provides redress when a protected Fourteenth Amendment property or liberty interest is infringed.

Justice v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n · filed 1983-11-18

Redress pursuant to § 1983 can be granted upon the showing of infringement of a property or liberty interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.

A public employer’s refusal to hire an applicant because of her spouse’s protected political activity can support a § 1983 freedom-of-association claim.

Cybyske v. Independent School District No. 196, Rosemount-Apple Valley · filed 1984-04-06

We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s section 1983 claim for deprivation of her constitutional right of freedom of association.

Section 1983 requires deprivation of a right secured by federal law and does not remedy every wrong committed under color of law.

Wilson v. Walden · filed 1984-04-23

Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for every wrong committed under color of law. The plaintiff must show deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States before the injury is actionable. The plaintiff must establish an entitlement, right, or liberty interest that is protected by state or federal law.

A teacher states a § 1983 claim by alleging nonrenewal in retaliation for participation in community and school-district affairs.

Hadley v. Moffat County School District RE-1 · filed 1984-05-07

Under these standards, Had-ley and Baxter stated a section 1983 claim because they alleged that their non-renewal was in retaliation for their participation in community and school district affairs.

A § 1983 complaint must identify a specific, articulable constitutional right, because not every invasion of personal rights amounts to an actionable constitutional violation.

Carolyn Bell Marcus Bell, an Infant by His Next Friend Carolyn Bell v. The School Board of the City of Norfolk Thomas G. · filed 1984-05-07

A complaint alleging a § 1983 violation must state on its face a cognizable claim for relief based upon a specific and articulable constitutional right. ... Not all invasions of personal rights approach the magnitude of a constitutional violation actionable under § 1983.

A public employee establishes a § 1983 claim when protected speech was the but-for cause of adverse renomination and reappointment decisions.

Lewis v. Blackburn · filed 1984-05-17

Because Lewis therefore would have been renominated by Blackburn and reappointed by Judge Snepp but for the exercise of those protected rights, we conclude that she has established a meritorious claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Campbell v. Sumner · filed 1984-06-11

The plaintiff in a § 1983 action must establish a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Lawful enforcement of a state statute that violates no federally protected right does not create a § 1983 cause of action.

Rayborn v. MISS. STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAMINERS · filed 1985-01-15

Since this Court has determined that the statutory prohibition of the public practice of denturism as contained in the Dental Act does no violence to the Plaintiffs' constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights, the lawful enforcement of the statutory enactment likewise presents no cause of action cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

Lawful enforcement of a state statute that violates no federally protected right does not create a § 1983 cause of action.

Rayborn v. Mississippi State Board of Dental Examiners · filed 1985-01-15

Since this Court has determined that the statutory prohibition of the public practice of denturism as contained in the Dental Act does no violence to the Plaintiffs’ constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights, the lawful enforcement of the statutory enactment likewise presents no cause of action cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

A § 1983 claim seeking relief for constitutional violations must be dismissed when the underlying constitutional claims lack merit.

Carlson v. Village of Union City, Mich. · filed 1985-01-29

As discussed above, the Court has concluded that plaintiff’s constitutional claims lack merit. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his constitutional rights must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not support a claim based on an asserted constitutional right to a safe workplace because no such federal right exists.

Cope v. State · filed 1985-04-29

However, there is no federal, constitutional right to a safe place to work. ... Therefore, appellant has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A student has no due-process interest in participating in interscholastic athletics, so a § 1983 challenge to a high-school eligibility rule presents no substantial federal claim.

Maroney v. University Interscholastic League · filed 1985-07-01

We therefore hold that that claim “has no plausible foundation” in law and is therefore insubstantial.

Section 1983 permits recovery only upon proof that a right guaranteed by the Constitution or federal law was deprived.

Thorne v. Jones · filed 1985-07-22

it is axiomatic that no recovery may be had under Sec. 1983 absent proof of deprivation of a right guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A § 1983 action must rest on the deprivation of a constitutional right.

Kimsey v. Felix J. Gora H.K. Russell Rita Koontz Mr. Hussman Librarian · filed 1985-08-01

A 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action must be predicated on a deprivation of constitutional rights.

A § 1983 damages award requires deprivation of a constitutional right.

Hamm v. Dekalb County, and Pat Jarvis, Sheriff · filed 1985-11-04

The court thus concluded that Hamm was not deprived of any constitutional rights and thus was not entitled to an award of damages under § 1983.

A § 1983 action must be based on deprivation of a constitutional right, not merely state law.

King v. Raymond Capots, Chairman the Ohio Parole Board/adult Authority · filed 1985-11-15

a Sec. 1983 action must be predicated on a deprivation of constitutional right.

Section 1983 damages are unavailable when the challenged government action deprived the plaintiffs of no constitutional right.

Cottonwood Farms v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 1986-09-29

Since we have concluded that plaintiffs were not deprived of any constitutional rights in the board’s actions denying plaintiffs’ rezoning application, claim six for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was properly dismissed.

A Section 1983 complaint must identify a particular federal right that was violated; generalized environmental protection interests are not protected property or liberty interests, and equal-protection liability requires intentional or purposeful discrimination.

State of NY v. Shore Realty Corp. · filed 1986-10-10

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a § 1983 complaint must allege conduct that arguably deprives the claimant of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. ... Moreover, the claimant must allege that a particular right has been violated. ... As far as this Court is aware, such is not a right recognized under § 1983. ... Although Shore implies unfairness in the application of Federal and State environmental laws, it does not allege intentional or purposeful discrimination on the part of the Commissioners, a prerequisite to a valid equal protection claim.

A plaintiff seeking damages under § 1983 must prove that the defendant’s conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.

Ford v. Childers · filed 1986-12-22

To recover damages in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must prove as part of his burden that the defendant’s actions resulted in a deprivation of constitutional rights.

Every § 1983 plaintiff must prove a violation of the underlying constitutional right, and merely negligent conduct does not establish a due-process violation.

Lunde v. Oldi · filed 1986-12-26

Because in any given § 1983 suit the plaintiff must prove a violation of the underlying constitutional right, ... and because merely negligent conduct is not sufficient to state a claim under the Due Process Clause, we find that Lunde’s complaint was properly dismissed.

Defamation alone does not support a § 1983 claim because reputation is not a right, privilege, or immunity protected by federal law.

Young v. Calhoun · filed 1987-03-18

There is no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for defamation because interest in one’s reputation is not a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Correcting inaccurate information in a prisoner’s records does not deprive the prisoner of a constitutional right actionable under § 1983.

Jones v. Jomrog · filed 1987-08-27

Thus, the plaintiff's Basic Information Sheet currently reflects that he was convicted of violating Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. Sec. 750.329, which is involuntary manslaughter. Therefore, the defendant did not deprive the plaintiff of any constitutional rights, nor can the plaintiff prove any set of facts in support of such a claim which would entitle his to relief.

Section 1983 is not a general tort statute and does not provide a cause of action for every injury inflicted by a state officer.

Brown v. Diaz · filed 1987-09-08

Because 42 USC § 1983 is not a general tort statute but imposes liability only for [the violation] of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, it does not grant a cause of action for every injury . . . inflicted by a state officer.

A § 1983 claim alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations fails when the challenged state action violates neither constitutional right.

Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union Local 54 v. Read · filed 1987-11-02

Local 54 also asserts that it has a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) for violations under color of state law of the union’s first and fourteenth amendment rights. In light of our resolution of the union’s constitutional attacks on the Casino Control Act, we find that the district court’s disposition of the § 1983 claim was appropriate, and we affirm that disposition.

Defamation by a state official, without an additional protected interest, does not support a § 1983 claim.

Hysaw v. Washburn University of Topeka · filed 1987-12-04

Even claims of defamation are not enough, standing alone, to invoke the protections of section 1983. ... Plaintiffs have shown nothing in addition to their defamation charges which would justify invoking section 1983, and defendants’ motion on this issue will be granted.