AND · 42usc1983:person
Under Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police (491 U.S. 58 (1989)), neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" under § 1983 when sued for damages, though state officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief (or in their personal capacities for damages under Hafer) are "persons".
Exact element source
Every person whoSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [46:62] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 10 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (10). Excluded context examples:Dye v. City of Warren — 367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Thompson v. Community Action of Greater Wilmington, Inc. — 567 F. Supp. 1159 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Kamenesh v. City of Miami — 772 F. Supp. 583 (1991) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc1983: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
| individual-capacity provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether an official sued personally is a "person". | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| municipality provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a local government is a "person". | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | Collins v. City of Harker Heights — 503 U.S. 115 (1992) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| official-capacity provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a state official sued in an official capacity is a "person". | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/lower-court · not counted |
| plaintiff-as-person provisional; provisional (1 case) | Who may sue: whether the plaintiff is a person entitled to bring a § 1983 action. | 2 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon — 934 F.3d 1076 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon — 934 F.3d 1076 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dye v. City of Warren — 367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Thompson v. Community Action of Greater Wilmington, Inc. — 567 F. Supp. 1159 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Kamenesh v. City of Miami — 772 F. Supp. 583 (1991) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Dodson v. Polk County — 628 F.2d 1104 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Calabretta v. Floyd — 189 F.3d 808 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsSheriff sued in individual capacity only; suability not contested. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Henderson v. Glanz — 813 F.3d 938 (2015) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon — 934 F.3d 1076 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: four enrolled tribal members cited by deputies (Bunim, Sansoucie, Ochoa, Lopez); count: individual members' claims arising from traffic stops, citations and vehicle impoundments in Indian country; theory: tribal members may use § 1983 to vindicate individual rights; subject: party=four enrolled tribal members cited by deputies (Bunim, Sansoucie, Ochoa, Lopez); count=individual members' claims arising from traffic stops, citations and vehicle impoundments in Indian country; theory=tribal members may use § 1983 to vindicate individual rights Individual tribal members may bring "traditional" § 1983 suits to vindicate individual rights; the court decides only that the claims are cognizable, not that they succeed. | enrolled tribal members personally stopped, cited and (some) deprived of their vehicles by county deputies on the reservation | Each was stopped and detained by a San Bernardino County Deputy; some had their vehicles seized.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1076-01; Unicode character offsets [13156:13252] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1a92b573cb7b7718761366c75498701e624dc65384760a7512cf1375ad1434ab.Sindelar impounded Bunim's car, leaving her alone on the roadside.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1076-01; Unicode character offsets [1544:1610] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1a92b573cb7b7718761366c75498701e624dc65384760a7512cf1375ad1434ab.Section 1983 allows any "person" to sue for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1076-01; Unicode character offsets [12270:12410] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1a92b573cb7b7718761366c75498701e624dc65384760a7512cf1375ad1434ab.They have a cause of action under § 1983 against the defendants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1076-01; Unicode character offsets [13350:13414] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1a92b573cb7b7718761366c75498701e624dc65384760a7512cf1375ad1434ab. |
| Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon — 934 F.3d 1076 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Chemehuevi Indian Tribe (plaintiff); count: Tribe's claim to be free of state regulatory jurisdiction on its reservation; theory: a tribe may not use § 1983 to vindicate sovereign or communal rights, nor sue parens patriae for its members; subject: party=Chemehuevi Indian Tribe (plaintiff); count=Tribe's claim to be free of state regulatory jurisdiction on its reservation; theory=a tribe may not use § 1983 to vindicate sovereign or communal rights, nor sue parens patriae for its members An Indian tribe cannot sue under § 1983 to vindicate sovereign or quasi-sovereign rights against state regulatory authority (Inyo County), and cannot proceed parens patriae. | Indian tribe suing county officers to vindicate its freedom from state regulation on the reservation, and as parens patriae for its members | An Indian tribe "may not sue under § 1983 to vindicate" a "sovereign right," such as its right to be free of state regulation and control.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1076-01; Unicode character offsets [13465:13603] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1a92b573cb7b7718761366c75498701e624dc65384760a7512cf1375ad1434ab.Nor can the Tribe assert its members' individual rights as parens patriae in a § 1983 action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1076-01; Unicode character offsets [13649:13742] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1a92b573cb7b7718761366c75498701e624dc65384760a7512cf1375ad1434ab.We hold that the individual plaintiffs, but not the Tribe, can challenge the citations under § 1983.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1076-01; Unicode character offsets [853:953] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1a92b573cb7b7718761366c75498701e624dc65384760a7512cf1375ad1434ab.The Tribe, however, cannot assert its sovereign rights under that statute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1076-01; Unicode character offsets [14458:14532] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1a92b573cb7b7718761366c75498701e624dc65384760a7512cf1375ad1434ab. |
| Galloway v. County of Nassau — 141 F.4th 417 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: law; party: Hafer; count: reinstatement claims; theory: official-capacity suit for prospective relief; subject: party=Hafer; count=reinstatement claims; theory=official-capacity suit for prospective relief Court of Appeals' holding, reported and endorsed by citation (Will n. 10) but not the question on certiorari. | state-official-sued-for-prospective-relief | They too filed suit against Hafer, seeking monetary damages and reinstatement under § 1983.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [1681:1772] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.As to claims for reinstatement brought against Hafer in her official capacity, the court rested on our statement in Will that state officials sued for injunctive relief in their official capacities are “persons” subject to liability under § 1983.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [2191:2437] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07. |
| Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Hafer; count: damages claims; theory: personal-capacity suit; subject: party=Hafer; count=damages claims; theory=personal-capacity suit Personhood turns on the capacity in which the officer is SUED (who pays), not the capacity in which she ACTED; exercising official hire/fire authority does not convert a personal-capacity damages suit into a suit against the State. | individual/state-official-sued-in-personal-capacity-for-official-acts | Shortly after becoming auditor general, she dismissed 18 employees, including named respondent James Melo, Jr., on the basis that they “bought” their jobs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [1031:1186] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.These respondents allege that Hafer discharged them because of their Democratic political affiliation and support for her opponent in the 1988 election.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [1508:1660] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.Turning to respondents’ monetary claims, the court found that six members of the Gurley group had expressly sought damages from Hafer in her personal capacity.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [2469:2628] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.the phrase “acting in their official capacities” is best understood as a reference to the capacity in which the state officer is sued, not the capacity in which the officer inflicts the alleged injury.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [7140:7341] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.By contrast, officers sued in their personal capacity come to court as individuals. A government official in the role of personal-capacity defendant thus fits comfortably within the statutory term “person.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [7778:7984] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [15867:15977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07. |
| Hudson v. McMillian — 503 U.S. 1 (1992) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Collins v. City of Harker Heights — 503 U.S. 115 (1992) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law Restated, not contested. | city | In Monell, the Court held that Congress intended municipalities and other local government entities to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [5492:5650] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046. |
| American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. Sullivan — 526 U.S. 40 (1999) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
the phrase “acting in their official capacities” is best understood as a reference to the capacity in which the state officer is sued, not the capacity in which the officer inflicts the alleged injury.
Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
the phrase “acting in their official capacities” is best understood as a reference to the capacity in which the state officer is sued, not the capacity in which the officer inflicts the alleged injury.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [7140:7341] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.Under Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police (491 U.S. 58 (1989)), neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" under § 1983 when sued for damages, though state officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief (or in their personal capacities for damages under Hafer) are "persons".
interpretation
By contrast, officers sued in their personal capacity come to court as individuals. A government official in the role of personal-capacity defendant thus fits comfortably within the statutory term “person.”
Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
By contrast, officers sued in their personal capacity come to court as individuals. A government official in the role of personal-capacity defendant thus fits comfortably within the statutory term “person.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [7778:7984] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.Under Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police (491 U.S. 58 (1989)), neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" under § 1983 when sued for damages, though state officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief (or in their personal capacities for damages under Hafer) are "persons".
interpretation
As to claims for reinstatement brought against Hafer in her official capacity, the court rested on our statement in Will that state officials sued for injunctive relief in their official capacities are “persons” subject to liability under § 1983.
Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
As to claims for reinstatement brought against Hafer in her official capacity, the court rested on our statement in Will that state officials sued for injunctive relief in their official capacities are “persons” subject to liability under § 1983.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [2191:2437] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.Under Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police (491 U.S. 58 (1989)), neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" under § 1983 when sued for damages, though state officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief (or in their personal capacities for damages under Hafer) are "persons".
interpretation
In Monell, the Court held that Congress intended municipalities and other local government entities to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies.
Collins v. City of Harker Heights — 503 U.S. 115 (1992) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 (42usc1983: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
In Monell, the Court held that Congress intended municipalities and other local government entities to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [5492:5650] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.Under Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police (491 U.S. 58 (1989)), neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" under § 1983 when sued for damages, though state officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief (or in their personal capacities for damages under Hafer) are "persons".