Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
244,131
cases (
101,211 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case:
Imbler v. Pachtman
Imbler v. Pachtman (1976)
scotus · cites it 36×
“The question presented in this case is whether a state prosecuting attorney who acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution is amenable to suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the defendant's constitutional rights.”
Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization (1979)
scotus · cites it 36×
“The District Court held that the complaint stated a claim under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 . [6] Without deciding whether the "secured by the Constitution" language in § 1343 (3) should be construed to include Supremacy Clause claims, [7] the District Court concluded that it had…”
Maria De Lourdes Torres v. Police Officer Jones (2016)
ny · cites it 17×
“Applying these principles to the consolidated appeals now before us, we hold that the courts below improperly granted summary judgment to the individual defendants on plaintiff’s false arrest and malicious prosecution claims under New York common law and 42 USC § 1983 . We…”
Blunt v. Lower Merion School District (2014)
ca3 · cites it 22×
“§ 2000d; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; and state law, claiming that African American students in the LMSD suffered from such discrimination.”
Wallace v. Kato (2007)
scotus · cites it 14×
“§ 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , seeking damages for an arrest that violated the Fourth Amendment.”
Donahoe v. Arpaio (2012)
azd · cites it 73×
“Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ........................”
Heck v. Humphrey (1994)
scotus · cites it 16×
“This case presents the question whether a state prisoner may challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 . I Petitioner Roy Heck was convicted in Indiana state court of voluntary manslaughter for the killing of Rickie Heck,…”
Albright v. Oliver (1994)
scotus · cites it 18×
“§ 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983 , against Detective Oliver in his individual and official capacities, alleging that Oliver deprived him of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendmenthis "liberty interest"to be free from criminal prosecution except upon probable cause.”
Pendleton v. Mills (2001)
tennctapp · cites it 33×
“Before the prison’s grievance procedures had been exhausted, both prisoners filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, alleging that the corrections officer had violated his oath of office, unlawfully discriminated against them based…”
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (1982)
scotus · cites it 19×
“" Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States when that deprivation takes place "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory .”
Knick v. Township of Scott (2019)
scotus · cites it 10×
“Knick then filed an action in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. §1983 , alleging that the ordinance vio- lated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
Damous Nettles v. Randy Grounds (2016)
ca9 · cites it 9×
“GROUNDS SUMMARY* Habeas Corpus / Prisoner Civil Rights The en banc court vacated the district court’s dismissal of a matter, brought as a habeas corpus petition by a California state prisoner serving a life sentence, challenging a disciplinary violation on constitutional grounds…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1983(1988) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.