Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 429

524US2

Unit: $U91

[09-06-00 17:16:26] PAGES PGT: OPIN

384 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. SCHACHT

Opinion of the Court

Amdt. 14, § 1; Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The de-
fendants immediately removed the case to federal court.

The defendants’ answer, ﬁled in federal court,

in part
raised as a “defense” that the “eleventh amendment to the
United States Constitution, and the doctrine of sovereign im-
munity, bars any claim under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against” the
State itself, namely, the “defendant Wisconsin Department
of Corrections [and] against any of the named defendants in
their ofﬁcial capacities.” Answer and Defenses, App. 14–15.
See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 165–167, and n. 14
(1985) (suit for damages against state ofﬁcer in ofﬁcial ca-
pacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment); Alabama
v. Pugh, 438 U. S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam) (suit against
state agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendment).

After further proceedings, the Federal District Court
considered those claims that were not against the State,
that is, the claims against the individual defendants in their
“personal capacit[ies].”
It concluded as to those claims that,
even if Schacht’s factual allegations were true, Schacht
had received the process that was his “due,” and his dis-
missal did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. No. 96–
C–122–S (WD Wis., Sept. 13, 1996), App. 31–34.
It there-
fore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
with respect to those claims.

Id., at 34.

The federal court also considered the defendants’ motion
to dismiss those claims ﬁled against the State, i. e., the claims
against the Department of Corrections and its employees in
their “ofﬁcial capacities.” The District Court granted the
motion, stating:

“Plaintiff agrees his claims for money damages are
barred [by the Eleventh Amendment] but pursues his
claims for injunctive relief. Plaintiff does not, however,
request injunctive relief in his complaint . . . . Defend-
ants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff ’s claims against the Wis-
consin Department of Corrections and the individual