it is otherwise affiliated.
Since the Eleventh Amendment provides states and “arms of the state” with immunity only from federal court suits, it does not directly apply to Section 1983 suits in state courts. The definition of “person” may thus be the primary focus of the analysis in state court Section 1983 suits. In Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section 1983 suits may be brought in state courts, but that neither the state nor state officials sued in their official capacities would be considered “persons” for purposes of such suits. In Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990), the Court reaffirmed that Section 1983 suits may be brought in state courts against other government entities (or against individuals) that are considered “persons” under Section 1983. In such cases, state law protections of sovereign immunity and other state procedural limitations on suits against the sovereign (see Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)) will not generally be available to the governmental (or individual) defendants.
In Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), however, the Court determined that, even though the Eleventh Amendment does not apply in state courts, the states do have an implied constitutional immunity from suits in state court. Thus states sued in state court under Section 1983 may now invoke an implied sovereign immunity from state court suits that would protect them much as the Eleventh Amendment immunity protects them in federal court. States may assert this immunity defense in lieu of arguing, under Will and Howlett, that they are not “persons” or may argue that, if they fall within the protection of Alden's implied sovereign immunity, they cannot be “persons” under Section 1983.
Notes
1 1 Subsequent to the ruling of the trial court, the university moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court awarded. While that ruling was on appeal, the student who had poured the substance on Furek agreed to pay all but $100 of the $30,000 compensatory damages award. Although the Delaware Supreme Court subsequently overturned the judgment for the university, and ordered a new trial on the apportionment of liability between the student and the university, it does not appear that Furek availed himself of the opportunity for a new trial, leaving the university responsible for only $100 of the damage award.
2 2 “10 Leading Causes of Death by Age Group—United States 2010,” Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, available at https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10lcid_all_deaths_by_age_group_2010-a.pdf.
3 3 See http://www.suicide.org/college-student-suicide.html.
4 4 Center for Collegiate Mental Health. (2017, January). 2016 Annual Report (Publication No. STA 17-74). See also Katie Reilly, “Record Numbers of Students Are Seeking Treatment for Depression and Anxiety—But Schools Can't Keep Up.” Time, March 18, 2018, available at http://time.com/5190291/anxiety-depression-college-university-students/.
5 5 This decision reverses and remands a summary judgment in favor of the university by the trial court. In a second opinion in this case, 547 P.2d 1015 (1976), the court reaffirmed (without discussion) the portion of its first opinion dealing with authorization.
6 6 Not all courts will be so willing to find institutional authority in cases concerning public institutions. Other courts in other circumstances may assert that a person who deals with a public institution “does so at his peril,” as in First Equity Corp. of Florida v. Utah State University, 544 P.2d 887 (Utah 1975), where the court upheld the university's refusal to pay for stocks ordered by one of its employees.
7 7 In addition to federal constitutional rights, there are numerous federal statutes that create statutory civil rights, violation of which will also subject institutions to liability. These statutory rights are enforced under the statutes that create them, rather than under Section 1983. Institutions may also be liable for violations of state constitutional rights, which are enforced under state law rather than Section 1983.
8 8 State employees and officials may be sued in either their “official” capacities or their “personal” (or “individual”) capacities under Section 1983. For the distinction between the two capacities, see Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25–31 (1991). Since lawsuits seeking money damages against employees or officers in their “official” capacities are generally considered to be covered by a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, such suits are discussed in this section of the book.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
