holding that for a § 1983 claim, “the state itself is not a properly named defendant, as it is shielded from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity”
How later courts described this case
- holding that for a § 1983 claim, “the state itself is not a properly named defendant, as it is shielded from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity”
- reviewing the district court’s decision to deny injunctive relief de novo even though a district court’s decision to deny injunctive relief is typically reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard
- “Because collateral estoppel precludes future litigation of one specific issue, and because that is what the state effectively asks us to find, we construe their argument as one for collateral estoppel rather than res judicata, despite the substitution of one term for the other in the state’s brief.”
- states are protected by the Eleventh Amendment from suits brought under § 1983 since the statute creates a cause of action only against a “person” who causes the deprivation of another’s constitutional rights
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in Judge Martin’s opinion. I write separately only to express my suspicion that, like the reports of Mark Twain’s death, see The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Third Edition, 2002), the report *655 of the death of Latin in the majority opinion’s footnote 5 is greatly exaggerated.