42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 bars monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities but permits claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Northcott v. Plunkett · filed 2002-08-13

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly held that Northcott did not have a claim for monetary damages, but improperly dismissed Northcott’s claim for injunctive relief. Although sovereign immunity bars a § 1983 suit for monetary damages against an official in his official capacity, a state defendant can be sued in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief.

A § 1983 damages claim against an official in his official capacity is treated as a claim against the entity he represents.

Rossi v. Troy State University · filed 2002-09-03

Since a suit for damages against an individual in his official capacity pursuant to § 1983 is the same as a suit against the entity which the individual represents, the official capacity claim for damages is a claim against TSU.

Section 1983 claims against an official in an official capacity are redundant when the governmental entity is also sued.

Bluitt v. Houston Independent School District · filed 2002-10-14

Bluitt’s action against Amstutz in his official capacity, however, is merely redundant and is of no independent legal significance. Thus, summary judgment is warranted on Bluitt’s claims against Amstutz in his official capacity under §§ 1981 and 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit money damages against state officers sued in their official capacities.

Best v. D'amario-Rossi, No. Cv99-033 47 18s (Jan. 2, 2003) · filed 2003-01-02

Accordingly, the plaintiff may not seek money damages from the defendants in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity suit against county officials as a suit against the county.

Wood v. Hancock County · filed 2003-02-12

Because Wood is suing Hannan and Clark in their official capacities the suit against them is identical to the suit against Hancock County.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities are treated as suits against the state and are generally barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Tweedy v. Cornyn · filed 2003-04-22

To the extent the defendants were sued in their official capacities, the dismissal of these claims was not error, and any appeal would be frivolous.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities but does not permit monetary relief against a state agency or officials in their official capacities.

Bankhead v. Arkansas Department of Human Services · filed 2003-05-07

Thus, Plaintiffs may proceed against McCook, Williams, and Knickrhem in their official capacities on Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs may not proceed against either DHS or the individual Defendants in their official capacities for monetary relief under § 1983.

Section 1983 suits against county employees in their official capacity are treated as suits against the county government.

Jackson v. Gill · filed 2003-06-24

The district court properly noted that, because defendants were sued in their official capacity, the real party in interest was the county government.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages claims against a state or its officials sued in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Davis v. Clinton · filed 2003-08-04

A state and its officials are not considered persons for the purpose of a § 1983 claim when sued in their official capacity for monetary damages.

Section 1983 treats a claim against a county officer in his official capacity as a claim against the county.

Keele v. Guajardo · filed 2003-08-14

Keele’s claim against Guajardo in his official capacity is treated as a claim against Bexar County.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a person in a “former official capacity.”

Kmetz v. STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN · filed 2003-08-28

I agree that a suit against an individual in his or her “former official capacity” is nonsensical. This claim against defendant Vogt will be dismissed.

Section 1983 treats a suit against a sheriff in his official capacity as a suit against the county.

Estate of Wade v. Tompkins · filed 2003-09-04

A suit against Tompkins in his official capacity is actually a suit against the County.

Section 1983 does not permit money-damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not persons under the section.

Ocasio v. Melendez · filed 2003-09-16

And, most importantly to the case at bar, states, its instrumentalities, and its officials when sued in their official capacity, are not persons under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow money damages against state defendants sued in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Golthy v. Alabama · filed 2003-10-17

As the Plaintiff concedes, the State Defendants sued in their official capacities are not persons under § 1983 and, therefore, cannot be sued for money damages.

Section 1983 does not provide a damages remedy against state judges and magistrates sued in their official capacities because states are not persons under the statute.

Meyers v. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas · filed 2003-11-17

Moreover, § 1983 does not provide a remedy against Judge Lias and Magistrate Judge Shoemaker in them official capacities. Such a suit is treated as if the actions were against the state itself. ... States are not considered persons under § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against officers in their official capacities are suits against the municipality and may be dismissed as duplicative when the municipality is also sued.

Disher v. Weaver · filed 2004-02-26

The § 1983 claims against these officers in their official capacities are essentially suits against the City. ... Since these allegations are duplicative, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted as to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against each individual officer named in his or her official capacity.

Section 1983 claims against state agency officials in their official capacities are subject to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ammend v. BioPort, Inc. · filed 2004-03-31

The claims against Dr. Myers in his official capacity must be dismissed because the Eleventh Amendment immunizes him from suit in his official status. Lawsuits against state officials in their official capacity are deemed to be lawsuits against the state itself.

When a complaint alleges that a public official’s conduct under color of state law creates Section 1983 liability, the court ordinarily treats the suit as against the official only in an official capacity unless the complaint says otherwise.

Sandra KOLAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF SANGAMON OF the STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellant · filed 1985-03-04

In order to avoid further confusion on this issue in the future, where a complaint alleges that the conduct of a public official acting under color of state law gives rise to liability under Section 1983, we will ordinarily assume that he has been sued in his official capacity and only in that capacity, as in Holly v. City of Naperville, supra.

State officials sued only in their official capacities are immune from a § 1983 damages claim when the state has not waived its immunity.

Johnson v. Simmons · filed 2004-08-19

The State of Kansas has not waived its immunity to suit in this case. Thus, defendants are immune from suit in their official capacities.

Section 1983 permits a prisoner to sue a state official in an official capacity for prospective injunctive relief.

Miller v. King · filed 2004-09-14

A prisoner, however, may bring a § 1983 action against state officials in their official capacities, but only for prospective, injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits a prisoner to sue state officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief.

United States v. King · filed 2004-09-14

A prisoner, however, may bring a § 1983 action against state officials in their official capacities, but only for prospective, injunctive relief.

Section 1983 claims against county officers in their official capacities are treated as claims against the county when the county is named and has notice and an opportunity to respond.

Neason v. Clark County, Nevada · filed 2005-01-04

Because Clark County is a named Defendant in this action, and has received notice and an opportunity to respond, the claims against the individual Defendants in their official capacities are the same as claims against Clark County.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 is treated as a claim against the government entity, and damages require a basis for liability against that entity.

Stanulonis v. Marzec · filed 1986-12-30

“Official capacity suits generally represent but another way of pleading an action against the entity of which the officer is an agent, Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), and damages may be awarded against a defendant in his official capacity only if they would be recoverable against the governmental entity itself.” ... Plaintiff has not pleaded a Monell count nor do the facts suggest the propriety of one. Thus, the action against Cordell in his official capacity must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Neal v. Lewis · filed 2005-07-13

Mr. Neal’s official capacity claims must fail, because state officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” subject to liability under § 1983.

State officers sued for damages in their official capacities are not persons under § 1983.

Garden State Electrical Inspection Services Inc. v. Levin · filed 2005-08-05

State officers sued for damages in their official capacities are not “persons” under § 1983 because they assume the identity of the government that employs them.

Section 1983 permits declaratory and injunctive relief against a state official sued in her official capacity.

Adibi v. California State Board of Pharmacy · filed 2005-10-07

As for Ms. Harris, Plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against her in her official capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a state agency or its employees in their official capacities when recovery would be paid from state funds.

Mcreynolds v. Alabama Department of Youth Services · filed 2006-03-28

As the discussion above pointed out, the ADYS is an arm of the state. Consequently, the Plaintiff cannot maintain an action under § 1983 against the ADYS or any ADYS employee in his or her official capacity. Therefore, all such claims are dismissed.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against county officials are properly brought against the county itself.

McDavid v. Arthur · filed 2006-05-16

Plaintiffs also name as defendants the Howard County Recreation and Parks Board, Gary Arthur, the Director of the Department, and James Robey, the Howard County Executive. Because these other defendants are being sued only in their official capacities, the action is properly brought only against the County itself.

Section 1983 does not impose personal damages liability on municipal officials sued in their official capacities; such a suit is treated as one against the municipality.

Carruthers v. Ludlow Taylor Elementary School · filed 2006-06-01

Although the complaint names District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams as a defendant, individual government officials sued in their official capacities are not personally liable for damages.

Section 1983 claims against state officials sued only in their official capacities can be barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Hood v. Norris · filed 2006-07-12

Having reviewed the record and appellate submissions, see Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.) (de novo review), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 991 (2004), we agree with the district court that Hood’s federal claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, because he named the defendants only in their official capacities.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity suit against a local government official even when the local government is also named as a defendant.

DL v. District of Columbia · filed 2006-08-25

The Court finds that Superintendent Janey is a proper defendant under § 1983. ... Contrary to defendants’ argument, government officials such as Superintendent Janey are not shielded from suit simply because the District of Columbia is also named.

In an official-capacity suit under § 1983, the officer’s employer is the proper party in interest.

Smith v. Brevard County · filed 2006-10-31

However, where a government official is sued in his official capacity under § 1983, the proper party in interest is the officer’s employer.

Section 1983 does not require dismissal of an official-capacity claim against a sheriff when the plaintiff also sues the county and the sheriff individually; the official-capacity claim is considered with the county claim.

Olibas v. Gomez · filed 2006-11-06

As illustrated above, the appropriate remedy in such a case is not to dismiss those claims against Defendant Gomez in his official capacity, but rather to consider the claims against him in his official capacity with those against Defendant Reeves County and separate from the claims against Defendant Gomez in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 requires an official-capacity claim against a government agency to allege that an agency policy or custom played a role in the violation of federal law.

Hurt v. D.C. Parole Board · filed 2006-11-08

Such a claim must allege that the agency’s policy or custom played a role in the violation of federal law.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against state agencies or state officials sued in their official capacities.

Manning v. Washington · filed 2006-12-01

Because the WSP is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983, the plaintiff has not stated a cause of action for money damages under 42 U:S.C. § 1983 against this defendant. To the extent that Troopers Ducommon and Clevenger are sued in their official capacities, the Section 1983 claims asserted against them should be dismissed.

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

Wilson v. Taylor · filed 2006-12-14

Also, there is no indication that the State of Delaware has waived or abrogated its sovereign immunity with respect to § 1983 claims. Therefore, the Court will grant the Motion To Dismiss and dismiss the official capacity claims seeking monetary damages raised against Defendants.

State officials sued in their official capacities are persons under § 1983 for purposes of equitable relief.

Taliaferro v. Dykstra · filed 1975-01-29

Since that ruling, this Court has held on two occasions that state officials sued in their official capacities are “persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 equitable relief. ... Without reiterating the reasons previously stated in those decisions, the Court deems plaintiffs’ motion well-taken and the Court will, therefore, vacate its order of March 6, 1974 to the extent defendants’ motion to dismiss this action as to their official capacities was then granted.

An official-capacity § 1983 suit against a sheriff is treated as a suit against the county.

Clark v. Summit County Sheriff · filed 2007-01-10

Plaintiffs’ suit against Sheriff Edmunds in his official capacity is equivalent to a suit against Summit County itself.

Under § 1983, an official-capacity claim against a government employee is treated as a claim against the employer.

Werth Ex Rel. Werth v. Board of Directors of the Public Schools · filed 2007-01-22

Thus, the official capacity claim against Kruzel is the same as the claim against the School Board.

A state official sued in an official capacity for money damages is not a person under § 1983.

Cobb v. Marshall · filed 2007-03-14

Second, because a suit for money damages against a state official in his or her official capacity “is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office,” Defendant also is not considered a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 treats claims against municipal officers in their official capacities as suits against the municipality, so those claims may be dismissed as repetitive.

Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia · filed 2007-03-28

Moreover, § 1983 claims against municipal officers in their official capacities are equivalent to suits against the municipality itself and are typically dismissed as repetitive.

An official-capacity suit under § 1983 is treated as a suit against the employing entity, so the official and entity are in privity for claim preclusion.

O'CONNOR v. Pierson · filed 2007-03-31

Official-capacity suits under § 1983 “generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” ... In light of this, public officials sued in their official capacities are deemed to be in privity with the entities that employ them.

Section 1983 claims against local officials in their official capacities do not change the local government’s liability under Monell.

Sherrod v. Palm Beach County School District · filed 2007-05-24

We note that naming these parties as defendants in their official capacities would have no effect on the District’s liability under Monell in this case.

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

Flint v. Dennison · filed 2007-05-31

When sued for prospective injunctive relief, a state official in his official capacity is considered a “person” for § 1983 pur- poses.

Section 1983 treats a suit against a city official in an official capacity as a suit against the city itself.

Jones v. Town of East Haven · filed 2007-07-06

This argument fails because “a section 1983 action against a city official in his or her official capacity is treated as an action against the City entity itself.”

Section 1983 does not permit an award of back pay against municipal commissioners sued in their official capacities.

Sartin v. City of Columbus Utilities Commission · filed 1976-09-27

Thus, no jurisdiction exists under § 1983 to award back pay against the Commissioners in their official capacities.

Section 1983 permits claims for prospective relief against state officials in their official capacity under the Ex Parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Housecalls Home Health Care, Inc. v. United States Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2007-07-23

Finally, the NCDHHS Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed because § 1983 claims cannot be asserted against states or state officials in their official capacity. This proposition, while generally true, does not apply to claims for prospective relief raised against state officials in their official capacity under the Ex Parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity suit as a claim against the government entity itself.

Guzman, Ruben v. Sheahan, Michael · filed 2007-08-07

An official capacity suit is tantamount to a claim against the government entity itself.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a state official sued in an official capacity when the plaintiff seeks no monetary damages and alleges that the official’s actions constitute policy that violates constitutional rights.

Dotson v. Collins · filed 2008-01-15

However, Dotson is not seeking monetary damages, and thus he need only allege that Collins’s actions constitute official policy and that such actions violated his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 claims against officers in their official capacities are treated as claims against their government entities and must be dismissed when the claims against those entities have been dismissed.

Couden v. Duffey · filed 2008-02-08

As claims against those entities have been dismissed, a claim against the defendants in their official capacities must also be dismissed.

An official-capacity § 1983 suit against a county clerk is treated as a suit against the county.

Lambert v. Hartman · filed 2008-02-25

Moreover, Lambert sued the Clerk in his official capacity, which is the equivalent of suing the Clerk’s employer, the County.

Section 1983 claims against municipal officials in their official capacities may be dismissed as redundant when the municipality is also a defendant.

Price v. District of Columbia · filed 2008-04-09

In Counts II and III in this case, the plaintiff has filed a § 1983 claim against Director Brown and Warden Waldren solely in their official capacities and in conjunction with having filed suit also against the District of Columbia. ... Accordingly, the § 1983 claims brought against Brown and Waldren in their official capacities are dismissed.

A § 1983 claim against a city officer in his official capacity is redundant when the city is the proper defendant.

Oxborrow v. City of Coalinga · filed 2008-05-29

A suit against Defendant Tingley, in his official capacity is the same as a suit against the payor of any damages that may be awarded, therefore the proper defendant is Defendant City of Coalinga. Plaintiffs § 1983 claim against Defendant Tingley in his official capacity is DISMISSED from the suit WITH PREJUDICE, it is redundant.

A § 1983 claim against a municipal official in an official capacity is treated as a claim against the municipality.

Banks v. District of Columbia · filed 2008-06-19

All claims against these defendants in their official capacities are treated as if they were brought against the District of Columbia itself.

Section 1983 did not permit official-capacity liability against these state officials on the pleaded claim.

McGRATH-MALOTT v. Maryland · filed 2008-06-23

Thus, neither Mades nor Sheriff Mullendore can be held liable under section 1983 in Count III in their official capacities.

State officials sued in their official capacities are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

Davis v. Williams · filed 2008-08-20

Moreover, the claims against State defendants cannot be maintained because State defendants, in their official capacities, are not “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against state agencies or state officials acting in their official capacities.

Fantini v. Salem State College · filed 2009-02-23

Nevertheless, we agree with the district court’s dismissal of Appellant's damages claim under § 1983, against defendants, Salem State College, Harrington and DelVec-chio in their official capacities, since " '[i]t is well settled beyond peradventure ... that neither a state agency nor a state official acting in his official capacity may be sued for damages in a § 1983 action.' "

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a warden in his official capacity or an immune state agency.

Cline v. Eric C. Dahlberg, Warden, Ohio State Reformatory · filed 1991-01-30

Upon review, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed the case. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the district court's order filed March 8, 1990, the district court's order is hereby affirmed.

Section 1983 damages claims against Puerto Rico officers in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity, while personal-capacity claims may proceed.

Martínez-Rivera v. Sánchez-Ramos · filed 2009-04-20

In the present case, Defendants are all state officers and they are sued for alleged acts done under color of law. Consequently, the sovereign immunity doctrine bars any official capacity claim brought forth against Defendants.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer as a claim against the municipality, making the officer a redundant defendant when the municipality is also sued.

Brown v. City of Ecorse · filed 2009-04-23

Because the claim against Carl Brown in his official capacity is nothing more than a claim against Ecorse itself (see, e.g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 195, 165-66 (1985)), his being named as a codefendant is pure surplusage and may be ignored (id.).

Section 1983 allows a person to seek redress when someone acting under color of state law deprives them of rights secured by the Constitution and laws.

Marigold Foods, Inc. v. Redalen · filed 1992-12-23

The court thus finds that the plaintiffs may maintain their § 1983 claim against the Commissioner in his official capacity.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity suit against a county sheriff as a suit against the county.

W.A.R.M. v. Bonds · filed 1994-01-07

Since a § 1983 suit against a peace officer in his or her “official capacity” is a claim against his or her county, not a claim against the peace officer, it is not covered by the State Self-Insurance Act.

In an official-capacity § 1983 suit, which entity an official serves as policy maker is a question of liability rather than immunity.

Skelton v. Camp · filed 2000-12-12

When individuals are sued in their official capacities under § 1983, the determination of which entity a defendant serves as policy maker presents a liability issue, not an immunity issue.

Section 1983 permits injunctive relief against state officials sued in their official capacities, but not monetary damages against them in those capacities.

Roland v. Epps · filed 2009-04-28

In regard to Roland’s federal claims, this Court has found that defendants sued in their official capacity cannot be sued for monetary damages, but “a state official may be sued for injunctive relief in his or her official capacity under [section] 1983.” ... Because the MDOC officials are immune from lawsuits seeking monetary damages, we find that the trial court properly dismissed Roland’s request for compensatory and punitive damages. However, we find that the trial court erred in its sua sponte dismissal of Roland’s request for injunctive relief as will be discussed under Issues III and IV.

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

Gorka ex rel. Gorka v. Sullivan · filed 1996-05-06

The amended complaint, for the first time, asserted § 1983 claims against Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Verdier in their individual capacities but also retained the claims against them in their official capacities. ... The official capacity claims for retrospective relief are clearly barred.

State officers are not persons subject to suit in their official capacities under § 1983.

Streater v. Courtright · filed 2009-05-15

The court also correctly ruled that, because Courtright, Harris and Williams are officers of the State of Michigan, they are not deemed “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; thus, they are not subject to suit in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Price v. Davis · filed 1999-03-16

In addition, we hold defendants to be immune from suit in their official capacities for any alleged violations of the United States Constitution under color of state law. ... However, our Supreme Court has held that the text of § 1983 permits actions against “persons,” but that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity” are “persons” under § 1983 when monetary damages are sought.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Zigmund v. Leone, No. Cv 99 0088494 (Nov. 23, 1999) · filed 1999-11-23

Accordingly, with respect to counts five and six, to the extent that the plaintiff seeks to sue the defendants for damages in their official capacities under § 1983, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Gonzalez v. Monty · filed 2000-02-11

As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Defendants’ argument that to the extent Plaintiff asserts his § 1983 claims against Defendants’ in their official capacity, such claims are barred.

Section 1983 claims against prosecutors in their official capacities are claims against the district attorney’s office.

In Re Morel · filed 2000-07-26

The claims brought by Plaintiff-Appellee against Morel and Sins in their official prosecutorial capacities are thus claims against the DA’s office.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against state officials in their official capacities.

Sarver v. Jackson · filed 2009-09-02

A state official, when sued in his official capacity for damages, is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.

An official-capacity § 1983 suit is treated as a suit against the government entity when it receives notice and an opportunity to respond.

Davis v. City of Bunkie · filed 2009-10-12

“As long as the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.”

Section 1983 permits a person to sue an official in an official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief when the official acts under color of state law.

Roy v. Reilly · filed 2010-02-22

When the Chairman of the United States Parole Commission is acting pursuant to his authority under the National Capital Revitalization and Self Government Improvement Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 712 (“D.C. Revitalization Act”), he is acting under color of a statute of the District of Columbia and, therefore, is subject to suit in his official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages against state officials acting in their official capacities because they are not persons under the statute.

Molina v. New York · filed 2010-03-03

Additionally, § 1983 actions seeking monetary damages against state officials acting in their official capacity are prohibited, as such officials are not considered “persons” under the statute.

A section 1983 suit against a TDCJ official in his official capacity is a suit against Texas and is barred by sovereign immunity.

Hamilton v. Pechacek · filed 2010-03-11

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice Hamilton’s section 1983 claim against Pe-chacek to the extent that he was sued in his official capacity.

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

Stephens v. Hayes · filed 2010-04-13

Neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are considered “persons” under § 1983. Id. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ official capacity claims fail to state a claim under the statute.

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against state officers in their official capacities because they are not persons subject to suit under the section.

Sanaah v. Howell · filed 2010-06-25

As we have made clear, “Neither states nor state officers sued in their official capacity are ‘persons’ subject to suit under section 1983.”

Section 1983 does not permit recovery against a state official sued in his official capacity because that suit is against the State.

Blizzard v. Commander, Delaware State Police Troop Nine · filed 2010-07-22

For the reasons given above, to the extent that plaintiff intended to bring a § 1983 action against defendant in his official capacity, the action must fail as a matter of law.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a state official acting in an official capacity because the state is not a person under the section.

Nicholas v. Carter · filed 2010-09-10

Therefore under § 1983, a plaintiff cannot recover against a state official acting in his official capacity.

Section 1983 treats a suit against a municipal official in an official capacity as a suit against the municipality.

Basile v. Township of Smith · filed 2010-11-10

The Court agrees with the Burgettstown Defendants on this point. The Supreme Court has clearly established that official capacity suits, i.e., suits against municipal officials in their official capacity, should be treated as suits against the municipality.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for retrospective damages against a state officer sued in his official capacity because the officer is not a person under the section.

Baggett v. Clarke · filed 2011-02-04

Under §1983, however, a state officer sued in his official capacity is not considered a person, and therefore, is not subject to suit.

Section 1983 treats official-capacity claims against officers as claims against the government entity, so those officers cannot claim personal immunities.

Smith v. Leis · filed 2011-02-10

Additionally, all claims against Sheriff Leis and Deputy Copenhaver in their official capacity are essentially claims against the Sheriff’s Office, thus they are not entitled to any personal immunities.

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

Burns v. Alexander · filed 2011-03-04

A state official sued in his or her official capacity for prospective relief is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983, since an official-capacity action brought against a state official by a plaintiff seeking prospective relief is not treated as an action against the State.

State officials sued in their official capacity are not “persons” subject to § 1983 damages claims.

CYBER ZONE E-CAFE, INC. v. King · filed 2011-03-22

The Court also agrees that Count I is due to be dismissed for the alternative reason that state officials such as Defendant King who are sued in their official capacity are not considered "persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Cooper v. Diggs · filed 2011-04-11

To the extent that Cooper sued Capozza in his official capacity, the claim should have been dismissed. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

Section 1983 does not permit damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Hunter v. Virginia State Bar · filed 2011-05-09

Thus, since a state cannot be a defendant, plaintiffs may not recover damages against state officials sued in their official capacities for claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

An official-capacity § 1983 suit against a sheriff is treated as a suit against the municipality.

Brown v. Rodney Strain, Jr. · filed 2011-11-18

Because Strain is being sued in his official capacity as St. Tammany Parish Sheriff, the suit against him is “in essence” a suit against a municipality.

State officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to damages suits under § 1983.

Kenner v. Correctional Officer Vidaurri · filed 2012-01-11

The district court properly dismissed Kenner’s damages claims against defendants in their official capacities because state officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983.

An official-capacity Section 1983 claim against a superintendent is redundant when the school board is also named as a defendant.

McGath v. Hamilton Local School District · filed 2012-01-30

In addition, Superintendent Lester is sued in his official capacity. Because a suit against a state official in his “official capacity” is considered a suit against the state, “courts regularly dismiss as redundant claims against agents in their official capacities when the principal entity is also named as a defendant in the suit.” ... Accordingly, Superintendent Lester is dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not allow suits against state officials acting in their official capacities.

Winney v. Pallito · filed 2012-02-09

Defendant is correct that Section 1983 does not allow for suits against state officials acting in their official capacities.

Section 1983 provides no cause of action against state officials sued in their official capacities.

ZAJRAEL v. Harmon · filed 2012-05-02

Section 1983 provides no cause of action against agents of the State acting in their official capacities, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989), and sovereign immunity bars Zajrael’s claim for damages under RLUIPA.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity suit seeking prospective injunctive relief as a suit against a person.

Kerry Heckman, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Williamson County · filed 2012-06-08

A suit under section 1983 against a government official in his official capacity “is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office,” although such a suit is treated as a suit against a “person” under section 1983 when the plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief, as plaintiffs seek in this suit.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a county warden as duplicative of the claim against the county.

Baez Ex Rel. Estate of Villafane v. Lancaster County · filed 2012-07-02

The claim against Warden Guarini in his official capacity is duplicative of the suit against the County.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity suit against a government officer as a suit against the government entity the officer represents.

Hoyt v. City of El Paso · filed 2012-07-10

An official capacity suit is simply “another way of pleading an action against an entity of which the officer is an agent.” ... As a result, the Court treats Plaintiffs’ suit against Esparza and Abbott as a suit against the state of Texas.

Section 1983 permits claims for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities, but sovereign immunity bars official-capacity claims for monetary damages.

B.K. ex rel. Kroupa v. 4-H · filed 2012-07-12

Thus, defendants’ motion to dismiss B.K.’s claims for monetary damages from Nielson and Geppert in their official capacities is granted but, to the extent that defendants move to dismiss B.K’s claims for injunctive relief from Nielson and Geppert in their official capacities, that motion is denied.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against county commissioners as a claim against the county.

Range v. Douglas · filed 2012-07-13

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim against the Commissioners in their official capacity should be treated ás a claim against the County.

Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against Puerto Rico police officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, but claims for prospective equitable relief may proceed.

Serrano v. Figueroa-Sancha · filed 2012-07-16

Therefore, PRPD officials are immune from suit in their official capacity under the Eleventh amendment immunity afforded to the PRPD as an “arm” of the state, except as' to claims in equitable relief, which constitute the only exception as to § 1983 claims in which a state official can be sued in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not treat state officers sued in their official capacities for money damages as persons subject to suit.

Bayete v. Ricci · filed 2012-07-25

Moreover, state officers sued in their official capacities for money damages are not “persons” within the meaning of Section 1983.

An official-capacity claim under § 1983 against a municipal officer is duplicative when the municipality is already a defendant.

Johnson v. Hurtt · filed 2012-07-25

Additionally, with respect to Plaintiffs official capacity claims against Chief McClelland, the Court finds that these claims should be dismissed as they are simply another way of pleading against the City, which is already a party to this action.

Section 1983 damages claims against officials in their official capacities are treated as claims against the government entity.

Burgess v. Fischer · filed 2012-09-04

The present actions seeks damages, therefore the claims against Fischer, Prindle, Barrett, McKinney, Sortman, and Jordan in their official capacities are actually claims against the Board of Commissioners and are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not allow money damages against these federal parole officials in their official capacities.

McIntyre v. Fulwood · filed 2012-09-25

Fulwood, Kubic, Pacholski and Husk in their official capacities are not subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.

An official-capacity § 1983 claim against a municipal officer duplicates a claim against the municipality when both are sued.

McElroy v. City of Birmingham · filed 2012-09-28

In this case, the claims against Officer Hutchins in his official capacity are duplicative of the claims against the City. Therefore, plaintiffs claims against Officer Hutchins in his official capacity are due to be dismissed.

A § 1983 claim against a defendant in an official capacity is treated as a claim against the defendant’s employer.

Siegfried G.Christman v. Saint Lucie County, Florida · filed 2013-02-15

For purposes of a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a claim against a defendant in his official capacity is the same as a claim against his employer.

Section 1983 permits suits against state officials in their official capacities for prospective relief for violations of due process rights.

Chang v. Purdue University, The Trustees of Purdue University Dr. France A. Cordova, President of Purdue University · filed 2013-03-19

That said, it is well settled that a state official may be sued in his or her official capacity for prospective relief such as an injunction for a violation of a person’s due process rights under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a Virginia sheriff sued in his official capacity because the sheriff is an arm of the state.

Vollette v. Watson · filed 2013-04-01

This means that a Virginia Sheriff, as an arm of the State, is not subject to official capacity Section 1983 monetary liability.

A Section 1983 claim against a sheriff may be treated as an official-capacity claim when it challenges a practice or custom of the sheriff’s office.

Budd v. Motley · filed 2013-04-02

Accordingly, we conclude that Budd has sued the Sheriff in his official capacity.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against state officials sued in their official capacities, but it permits claims for prospective injunctive relief against them.

Enriquez v. Christina Melton Crain, Former Chair of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice, in Her Official Capacity · filed 2013-08-07

As a result, any claim for damages asserted by Enriquez under section 1983 cannot be maintained against the State officials Enriquez sued in their official capacities. A state official in his or her official capacity is, however, a “person” for purposes of a section 1983 claim seeking prospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits a suit against a state official in an official capacity for prospective relief based on an ongoing violation of federal law.

Doe v. Heil · filed 2013-08-26

Second, § 1983 suits against state officials acting in their official capacities are in effect suits against the State. Such suits are permissible under certain circumstances, notwithstanding the restrictions of the Eleventh Amendment—notably, where it is “suit for prospective relief against state officials named in their official capacities, based upon an ongoing violation of federal law.” Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 611 F.3d 1222, 1234 (10th Cir. 2010). Mr. Doe avers that he is only seeking prospective equitable and injunctive relief. And we have no reason to doubt that Mr. Doe’s lawsuit is jurisdictionally well-founded.

A § 1983 claim against police officers sued only in their official capacities must allege a municipal policy or custom.

Gregory Barren, Sr. v. Robinson · filed 2013-10-04

Although the district court properly dismissed Barren’s complaint because Barren named the police officer defendants only in their official capacities while failing to allege a municipal policy or custom, it would not be apparent to a pro se litigant that dismissal without prejudice would allow amendment.

Section 1983 does not allow retrospective injunctive relief against a state official sued in an official capacity.

Baker v. Hawai'i ex rel. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands · filed 2013-10-04

Defendant Abercrombie, in his official capacity, is not a “person” as defined in § 1983 for purposes of claims for retrospective injunctive relief.

Section 1983 treats a claim against a municipal official in her official capacity as a claim against the municipality, allowing the claims to be merged.

Flythe v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-11-08

The claims against Chief Lanier in her individual capacity are therefore dismissed, and the claims against her in her official capacity are collapsed with the claims against the District.

In a Section 1983 suit, an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer is equivalent to a claim against the municipality, so the officer may be dismissed as redundant when both are sued.

Baker v. City of Seatac · filed 2014-01-13

In the context of a § 1983 claim, “[a]n official capacity suit against a municipal officer is equivalent to a suit against the entity.” ... “When both a municipal officer and a local government entity are named, and the officer is named only in an official capacity, the court may dismiss the officer as a redundant defendant.” ... Consequently, the court also dismisses Mr. Cutts in his official capacity with respect to the § 1983 cause of action.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against state agencies or state officials sued in their official capacities.

Winkler v. Pennsylvania · filed 2014-01-16

It is well-established, however, that Section 1983 does not provide for damages claims against state agencies or state officials in their official capacities.

A Section 1983 claim against a state official in an official capacity is treated as a claim against the state.

Moncier v. Jones · filed 2014-02-06

When a plaintiff brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a state official in his or her official capacity, the claim is treated as though brought against the government itself.

Section 1983 claims against officers in their official capacities are duplicative when the governmental entity is also sued.

Noble v. Three Forks Regional Jail Authority · filed 2014-02-10

Because Noble has sued Three Forks Jail and a number of its officers in their official capacities, the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities will be dismissed.

In a Section 1983 action, a territorial officer is sued only in his official capacity when the complaint and record give no notice of an individual-capacity claim.

Greene v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority · filed 2014-02-11

Because Greene failed to allege in the Third Amended Complaint or, later, to produce evidence tending to show that Bruno-Vega committed any wrongful acts in his individual capacity, the District Court correctly concluded that he was sued only in his official capacity.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their official capacities cannot obtain prospective relief for a due process violation that is entirely in the past.

JTE Enterprises, Inc. v. Cuomo · filed 2014-02-15

The Plaintiffs third claim also does not implicate an ongoing violation of federal law. Specifically, the Plaintiff asks this Court to determine that it was previously denied due process in connection with the UIAB’s alleged failure to send the Plaintiff’s attorneys the necessary instructions concerning how to perfect its appeal of the November 23, 2010 determination to the Third Department. The Plaintiff does not raise any ongoing procedural due process violations which would permit this Court to provide it with prospective relief.

Section 1983 plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief against state officials must sue them in their official capacities.

Lopez v. Ortiz · filed 2014-03-31

Nowhere in the Complaint the plaintiffs assert whether the defendants are also sued in their official capacity. To claim federal rights, particularly injunctive relief, ... the defendants must also be sued in their official capacity.

Section 1983 does not allow claims for money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Ex parte Harvey Ruffin, Shelton Patterson, Sandra Giles and Kenneth Jones. · filed 2014-08-29

Likewise, Donahey is not permitted to assert a § 1983 claim for money damages against the petitioners in their official capacities.

Section 1983 does not allow damages or backpay claims against an Alabama sheriff sued in his official capacity when state sovereign immunity applies.

Heard v. Hannah · filed 2014-09-24

As a result, to the extent that Hannah is sued in his official capacity for an award of damages or backpay, he is immune from liability under § 1983 and state law, so this court lacks jurisdiction to hear such claims.

A § 1983 claim against a municipal official in his official capacity may be dismissed when the plaintiff also sues the municipality.

Cunney v. Board of Trustees · filed 2014-09-29

Therefore, because, in addition to suing the Village, Plaintiff has sued Knize-ski only in his official capacity, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs claims against Knize-ski.

Section 1983 does not allow money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Fedele v. Harris · filed 2014-11-20

In the entirety of plaintiffs’ complaint, there is no mention of declaratory or injunctive relief; plaintiffs seek money damages only, which are unavailable against defendants in their official capacities on the § 1983 causes of action.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against state officials in their official capacities, but it permits prospective relief against them.

Herster v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University · filed 2014-12-08

State employees and officials acting in their official capacities may not be sued for monetary damages under § 1983, but they may be sued for prospective relief.

Under § 1983, official-capacity claims against municipal officers are treated as claims against the municipality.

Davila v. City of Camden · filed 2014-12-11

Plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants are in their individual and official capacities, and the official capacity claims are actually claims against the City of Camden.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a sheriff as a claim against the county.

Amber Ard v. Rushing · filed 2014-12-29

The claims against Rushing in his official capacity are treated as claims against Lincoln County.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim for prospective reinstatement against a state official who has authority to reinstate the plaintiff.

Klaassen v. University of Kansas School of Medicine · filed 2015-02-03

Counts 1, 6, and 7 assert § 1983 claims against defendant Girod in his official capacity, so the Court denies defendants’ motion for judgment on those Counts as they relate to Girod. However, Girod is the only defendant plaintiff has sued who possesses the power to reinstate plaintiff, and thus plaintiff may pursue his reinstatement claims only against Girod.

Section 1983 treats a suit against a public official in an official capacity as a suit against the government entity.

Rosaura Building Corp. v. Municipality of Mayaguez · filed 2015-02-04

A suit against a public official in his official capacity is a suit against the government entity.

Section 1983 treats official-capacity suits against municipal officers as suits against the municipality, allowing redundant claims against the officers to be dismissed when the city is also sued.

McGuire v. Strange · filed 2015-02-05

For purposes of § 1983, suits against the Mayor and the Chief of Police in their official capacities are suits against the City itself. ... Because the City is also a defendant, the § 1983 ex post facto claims against the Mayor and Chief of Police in their official capacities are due to be dismissed as redundant.

Section 1983 does not permit an official-capacity suit against a West Virginia county prosecutor acting on behalf of the state, because the state is not a person under the statute.

Conley v. Ryan · filed 2015-03-13

Accordingly, the official-capacity claim against Sparks fails as a matter of law, inasmuch as, when acting in his prose-cutorial role, Sparks was acting on behalf of the state which is not a person within the meaning of Section 1983, and thus is not amenable to such a suit under the statute.

Section 1983 treats a claim against a city official in his official capacity as a claim against the city.

Mills v. City of Bogalusa · filed 2015-06-29

However, the Court finds that plaintiff’s causes.of action against Culpep-per in his official capacity are to be interpreted as causes of action against the City of Bogalusa.

Section 1983 permits prospective injunctive relief against a state official in her official capacity to prevent violations of federal rights.

Miller v. Davis · filed 2015-08-12

Because Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Davis from violating their federal constitutional rights, this Court has the power to grant relief under Ex parte Young.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against state officials in their official capacities because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Hudson v. Spencer · filed 2015-09-25

State officials acting in their official capacities cannot be sued under § 1983 for damages because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Section 1983 bars monetary relief against a state official sued in her official capacity, even when the state has waived sovereign immunity by removing the case to federal court.

Machete Productions, L.L.C. v. Page · filed 2015-12-28

However, even if a state waives its sovereign immunity, claims seeking monetary relief under “§ 1983 . . . do not lie against a [s]tate.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 (1997) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)). As a result, Machete’s claims against Page in her official capacity seeking economic damages and retrospective injunctive relief for an Incentive Program grant are barred.

Section 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from official-capacity suits.

Cecil Adams and Maxine Adams v. Harris County and Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the First Court of Appeals · filed 2015-12-28

In enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against Crawford in his official capacity because he is not amenable to suit in that capacity.

Thomas Stout, Jr. v. Crawford · filed 2016-02-09

However, with regard to Stout’s claims against Crawford in his official capacity, we conclude that Crawford is not amenable to suit under § 1983.

A § 1983 claim against a municipal officer in an official capacity may be dismissed as redundant when the municipality is also sued.

Signs for Jesus v. Town of Pembroke · filed 2016-03-24

Put plainly, it was redundant for plaintiffs to sue both the Town and Hodge in his official capacity.

A § 1983 judgment against a public official in an official capacity binds the represented government entity when it had notice and an opportunity to respond.

Banks v. Slay · filed 2016-07-25

Here, Plaintiffs have received a judgment against a public servant in his official capacity, public officials were provided notice and the opportunity to respond, and therefore, it is appropriate to impose liability on the entity the official represents.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim for monetary damages against a state official in an official capacity because the claim is treated as one against the State, which is not a person under the section.

Ladd v. Pallito · filed 2016-08-25

Plaintiff’s stated claims against Defendant in his individual capacity fail as a matter of law based on absolute immunity, see Curran v. Marcille, 152 Vt. 247, 249 (1989); and his federal claims for monetary damages against Defendant in his official capacity are barred because such claims are construed as being against the State, which is not a “person” amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Bock v. Gold, 2008 VT 81, ¶ 9, 184 Vt. 575, 577 (mem.) (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985)).

In a § 1983 suit, an official-capacity claim is presumed only when the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from official policies.

Vince Davis, Sr. v. City of Chicago Police Depart · filed 2016-09-23

And in Miller v. Smith we confirmed this “new regime” under which an official-capacity suit is presumed only when a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from official policies.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against states or state officials acting in their official capacities because they are not “persons” under the statute.

Committee to Protect our Agricultural Water v. Occidental Oil & Gas Corp. · filed 2017-01-20

Because neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are considered “persons” for purposes of § 1983, plaintiffs cannot assert official capacity claims' against government defendants Governor Brown, Nechodom, Rustic, and Oviatt.

Section 1983 claims for money damages against state officials in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2017-02-09

Thus, we will affirm in favor of the official-capacity Defendants on the alternative but well-worn ground that Williams’s § 1983 claims for money damages against the official-capacity Defendants were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A § 1983 claim against a municipal official in her official capacity duplicates a claim against the municipality and may be dismissed as redundant.

Lopez v. District of Columbia · filed 2017-08-02

Therefore, this Court finds that naming Mayor Bowser as a defendant is redundant given that the § 1983 claim against Mayor Bowser is effectively a claim against the District of Columbia.

Section 1983 permits an official-capacity claim against a district attorney for prospective injunctive relief despite immunity from damages claims.

Avitabile v. Beach · filed 2017-09-28

Although absolute prosecutorial immunity would bar a § 1983 damages claim against the District Attorney in his individual capacity and Eleventh Amendment immunity might shield him from a § 1983 claim for money damages in his official capacity, the doctrine of Ex parte Young permits an official-capacity claim against him for prospective, in-junctive relief to remedy an ongoing violation of federal constitutional law like the one alleged in this case.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity claim against a municipal officer as a claim against the municipality the officer represents.

Pestana v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs · filed 2017-10-13

Thus, it is clear that if Plaintiff is attempting to state a claim against the Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections Rehabilitation Department in his official capacity, the proper Defendant is the municipal entity for which that individual works. ... Under the circumstances presented, the Court finds that the most prudent course is to dismiss Plaintiff's official capacity claims without prejudice.

Section 1983 official-capacity claims against state officers require an ongoing violation of federal law to obtain prospective relief.

Burnett v. Allbaugh · filed 2017-11-07

Burnett’s official capacity suit limits him to prospective relief for an ongoing violation of federal law.

An official-capacity § 1983 suit against an individual is a suit against that official’s government entity.

Banks v. Slay · filed 2017-11-17

A core tenet of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 jurisprudence is that an official-capacity suit against an individual is really a suit against that official’s government entity.

Section 1983 treats an official-capacity suit against a municipal employee as a suit against the municipality.

Wyatt v. Municipality of Philadelphia · filed 2017-12-06

Wyatt did not name the City as a defendant in his previous action, but he sued the defendants in both their official and individual capacities and “an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). Thus, Wyatt effectively sought relief against the City.

Section 1983 permits a suit for prospective relief against an official whose policy allegedly causes a constitutional violation.

Courthouse News Service v. Brown · filed 2018-01-08

Because the Electronic Filing Standards and Principles and Order No. 2014-02 are silent regarding whether the Clerk's Office may provide public access to e-filed complaints prior to official acceptance—and because CNS claims instead that the allegedly unconstitutional delays in access to e-filed complaints stem specifically from Brown's policy of withholding them from the press until they are processed—Brown is the proper defendant in this action for prospective relief.

A state official acting in an official capacity is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.

Proctor v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2018-01-25

Accordingly, he is not a "person" subject to suit under § 1983.