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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| individual/state-official-sued-in-personal-capacity-for-official-acts | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/502/0021-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — satisfied | |
| municipality/city | Local government / municipal corporation sued as a "person" under Monell (Collins) | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/503/0115-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 — satisfied |
| official-capacity/state-official-sued-for-prospective-relief | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/502/0021-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — applied/lower-court | |
| state-official/personal-capacity-for-official-acts | State officer sued in personal capacity for acts taken in official authority (Hafer) | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — applied/merits; /f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — applied/merits; /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f2d/628/1104-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/189/0808-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/475/0645-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f4th/141/417 — Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/502/0021-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 | 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. |
| /us/502/0021-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 | 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. | official-capacity/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. |
| /us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/503/0115-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | 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. | municipality/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. |
| /us/526/0040-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 | 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 variant | 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.
/us/502/0021-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
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.”
/us/502/0021-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
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.
/us/502/0021-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
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.
/us/503/0115-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
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".