judicial immunity. The claims for damages against defendants Damiani and Do-herty are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). E.Defendant Waterbury Police Department A municipality is subject to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). A municipal police department, however, is not a municipality nor a “person” within the meaning of section 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir.1992) (affirming district court’s dismissal of claims against county sheriffs department because, under state law, sheriffs department lacked capacity to be sued); Peterson v. Easton Police Dep’t Criminal Investigations Divs., No. Civ.A. 99-4153, 1999 WL 718551, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 26, 1999) (<HOLDING>); Smith-Berch, Inc. v. Baltimore County, 68
holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983 holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 holding that a state university is not a person within the meaning of  1983 and therefore is not subject to suits brought under  1983 holding that a dog that was destroyed by the police department was obviously  seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding municipal police department to be an enterprise within meaning of hobbs act