Hafer v. Melo
- Decided
- November 5, 1991
- Docket
- 90-681
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,063 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a defendant official acting in his official capacity receives the same immunity as the government agency to which he belongs — (untitled) (1995)
- holding that the Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he deprived another of a federal right — Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services (2001)
- holding that state officers “sued in their personal capacity ... fit comfortably within the statutory term ‘person.’ ” — Winokur v. Office of Court Administration (2002)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58 (1989), we held that state officials “acting in their official capacities” are outside the class of “persons” subject to liability [*23] under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. 491 U. S., at 71. Petitioner takes this language to mean that § 1983 does not authorize suits against state officers for damages arising from official acts. We reject this reading of Will and hold that state officials sued in their individual capacities are “persons” for purposes of § 1983.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.