42 U.S.C. § 1983

A § 1983 claim against private defendants must allege facts showing state action, such as a conspiracy with state actors.

Perkins v. Proctor and Gamble Company · filed 2019-10-15

The Complaint does not meet the pleading requisites to state a claim under § 1983. There are no allegations that Defendants are state actors or that they engaged in a conspiracy with state actors to deprive him of rights protected by the Constitution.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against Columbia University or its employees because they are not state actors.

Biswas v. Rouen · filed 2019-10-16

“Columbia University and its employees are not state actors,” however, and are therefore not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against defense attorneys, including court-appointed attorneys, for their work as criminal defense counsel because they are not state actors.

Taplin, Jr. v. Watson · filed 2019-10-18

Defense attorneys, even those appointed by the court, are not considered state actors or federal official for purposes of a claim under Section 1983.

Section 1983 does not make private neighbors state actors merely because they complain to municipal officials about an alleged nuisance.

RETZLER v. MCCAULEY · filed 2019-10-18

Merely making complaints to municipal officials about an alleged nuisance does not convert a private person into a state actor subject to liability for constitutional violations under § 1983.

A private person does not become a state actor under § 1983 merely by complaining to municipal officials about an alleged nuisance.

WARDEN v. MCCAULEY · filed 2019-10-18

Merely making complaints to municipal officials about an alleged nuisance does not convert a private person into a state actor subject to liability for constitutional violations under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against a fellow inmate whose conduct is not fairly attributable to the state.

Salse, Jr. v. Phillips · filed 2019-10-18

Although Brown is an inmate in the custody of the State of Tennessee, he is not a state actor for purposes of suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires the injury producing conduct to be fairly attributable to the state.

Reynolds v. Semple · filed 2019-10-22

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the injury producing conduct is “fairly attributable to the State.” ... John Doe was the driver of the truck that rear-ended the prison van. Eviromental Site Developer owned the truck driven by John Doe. Neither are alleged to be (or appear to be) state actors.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to plausibly allege that the defendant is a state actor.

Sanders v. Focus Rehab Nursing · filed 2019-10-23

Plaintiff also failed to cure the defects identified by this Court in the April 4, 2019 Decision and Order, namely, that Plaintiff failed to allege (1) facts suggesting that Defendant is a state actor or violated any of Plaintiff's federal constitutional or statutory rights, (2) that her termination involved discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or (3) facts suggesting age or disability discrimination as the reason for her termination.

Police informant status alone does not make a private person a state actor under § 1983.

Rogers v. The City of New Rochelle · filed 2019-10-25

Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to suggest that any of them have acted as a state actor. He asserts that they have acted as police informants, but that alone does not constitute state action.

Section 1983 does not support a due process claim based on a private sale of goods under a possessory lien when the sale is not fairly attributable to the state.

Baskin v. MABCO Tr., Inc. · filed 2019-10-31

Likewise, Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff's state constitutional due process claim as set forth in the third cause of action, as well as the federal 42 USC § 1983 action alleged in the fourth cause of action. ... Within this context, courts have held that private sales of goods undertaken pursuant to a possessory lien are too attenuated from the state to be considered state action so as to trigger constitutional protection under the US Constitution ( see generally Flagg Bros., Inc. v Brooks , 436 US at 165-166; Sharrock v Dell Buick-Cadillac , 45 NY2d at 158-159, 159 n 2).

Section 1983 requires conduct attributable to state action; a private corporation cannot be sued under the section without that connection.

Rowlette v. Lifebridge Health · filed 2019-11-04

Here, Lifebridge is a private corporation, not a state actor. ... Accordingly, the Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim under Section 1983 and this claim shall be DISMISSED.

Section 1983 does not treat court-appointed defense lawyers as state actors solely because of their appointment.

Pizarro v. United States of America · filed 2019-11-05

As they are not state actors, Plaintiff has not stated a claim against them under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a private attorney does not become a state actor merely by representing a defendant in a state criminal case.

Grant v. Seidler · filed 2019-11-06

As Defendant Alan B. Seidler is a private party who does not work for any state or other government body, Plaintiff has not stated a claim against this defendant under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law; a private retailer is not liable solely for its private conduct.

CHARLES v. SAXBY'S · filed 2019-11-06

Saxby’s does not appear to be a “state actor” subject to liability under § 1983, but rather appears to be a private retailer.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to be a state actor.

CHARLES v. GREEN STREET COFFEE CO. · filed 2019-11-06

None of the named Defendants against whom Charles makes substantive allegations appear to be “state actors” subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a person who is not a state actor.

Whatley v. A. Cross · filed 2016-01-27

Even if Waxler, a non-state actor (and thus not subject to a § 1983 action), made a false complaint (a point we do not reach), Whatley has presented no competent evidence that the State Defendants knew it was false, or that probable cause was otherwise lacking.

Section 1983 permits claims against a private foster care agency that acts under color of state law.

Jewels v. Lewis · filed 2019-11-12

This court relies on its previous analysis and reaches the same conclusion that Perez remains good law and that Heartshare is a state actor subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires state action; a public employee union does not become a state actor by collecting membership dues under a state-authorized agency shop agreement.

OLIVER v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 668 · filed 2019-11-12

Plaintiff’s claim founders, however, at the second part of the test, as Local 668 is not a “state actor” for the purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a private retailer that is not a state actor.

CHARLES v. TIFFANY CO. · filed 2019-11-12

Tiffany Co., a private retailer, is not a “state actor” subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires state action; lawyers acting merely as agents of a private hospital do not satisfy that requirement.

Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 2019-11-13

Further, because Defendants Creech and Salsman—counsel for ... Defendant PCMH, see Compl. ¶ 125—are mere agents of PCMH, any suggestion that their actions on behalf of PCMH constituted “state action” for purposes of § 1983 is not only meritless, but “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a private entity that is neither a state actor nor acting under color of state law.

Stepp v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA · filed 2019-11-13

Wells Fargo is neither a “state actor,” nor was it acting “under color of state law,” as is required for imposition of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of an individual’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 generally does not impose liability on private parties because they are not state actors.

Stevens v. J&F Gourmet Deli · filed 2019-11-13

Defendants are private parties and not state actors. Plaintiffs therefore do not state any claim under Section 1983.

Section 1983 generally does not impose liability on private parties unless they act under color of state law.

Torres v. City of New York · filed 2019-11-13

A claim for relief under § 1983 must allege facts showing that each defendant acted under the color of a state “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.” Private parties are therefore not generally liable under the statute.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a public defender agency based on an allegedly unconstitutional administrative contracting policy.

Feenstra v. Sigler · filed 2019-11-14

Accordingly, plaintiffs plausibly allege the OIDS Defendants were state actors for purposes of a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 requires state action; private attorneys who do not act with state officials are not state actors on that basis.

FLEMING v. SECRETARY OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES · filed 2019-11-14

We decline to decide whether the private attorneys violated Ms. Fleming’s civil rights as they are not state actors.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant was a state actor or acted under color of state law.

Hussian v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2019-11-20

Like the original complaint, the amended complaint failed to allege facts to suggest that either of the defendants is a state actor.

Section 1983 does not treat public defenders performing traditional criminal defense work as state actors.

GRAY v. THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OF BUCKS COUNTY · filed 2019-11-20

The law is settled that criminal defense attorneys, even those employed as public defenders, are not state actors for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against private actors require a nexus to state action.

Khalid v. Microsoft Corporation · filed 2019-11-21

He provides no relevant case law in support of this claim, which contradicts well-established precedent that Section 1983 claims against private actors require a state nexus.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; speculation that private defendants acted with a state official does not establish state action.

PARKER v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2019-11-21

To establish any claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) the conduct at issue was committed by a person acting under the color of state law, and (2) the complained-of conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights secured under the Constitution or federal law. ... Plaintiff’s assertion that Mr. Dennis instructed other defendants to remove plaintiff from Steel is pure conjecture.

Section 1983 requires facts sufficient to show state action for a viable claim.

Phillips v. South Coast Plaza · filed 2019-11-25

The district court properly dismissed Phillips’s § 1983 action because Phillips failed to allege facts sufficient to show the violation of a constitutional right, or the presence of state action.

Section 1983 requires a state actor and does not provide a claim against the federal government.

(PS)Singh v. United States Government · filed 2019-11-25

Plaintiff also appears to assert a due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But plaintiff only brings this action against the federal government and not a state actor.

A union is a private actor, and a § 1983 plaintiff forfeits an argument that its conduct took on the color of law by failing to raise it.

Smith v. Evans · filed 2019-11-25

Although there are “numerous situations when private conduct takes on the color of law,” thereby giving rise to § 1983 liability, ibid., Smith has forfeited any argument that his allegations present such a situation.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a private defendant acted under color of state law or conspired with state actors to deprive someone of constitutional rights.

Perales v. Proctor and Gamble Company · filed 2019-11-26

The Complaint does not state a § 1983 claim or a Bivens claim. There are no allegations that Defendants are state actors or federal actors or that they engaged ina conspiracy with state or federal actors to deprive Plaintiff of his rights protected by the Constitution.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendant acted as a state actor to support a constitutional claim.

Green v. KVC · filed 2019-11-26

Plaintiff, for example, alleges no facts showing that KVC is the type of state or federal actor that she may hold liable for any constitutional violation.

A § 1983 complaint fails when it does not allege that any defendant is a state actor.

Conway v. Loiseau · filed 2019-11-26

For the reasons below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in whole and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. ... Finally, in addition to the jurisdictional defects in Plaintiff’s complaint, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff does not allege any violation under § 1983 because he fails to allege that any of the Defendants are state actors.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a private business whose conduct is not attributable to the state.

Shanklin v. Crane Service Inc. · filed 2019-11-26

Because he alleges no basis on which to hold Crane liable under § 1983, Shanklin’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

A federal district court is not a state actor subject to liability under § 1983.

PSOTA v. PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE · filed 2019-12-03

The District Court on Cooper Street in Camden, New Jersey is a United States District Court, and therefore is not a state actor subject to liability under § 1983.

Court appointment alone does not make defense counsel a state actor subject to a § 1983 claim.

Jones v. The City of New York · filed 2019-12-03

But these individuals are private parties who do not work for any state or other government body; their court-appointment does not convert their conduct into state action. As they are not state actors, Plaintiff has not stated a claim against them under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a private defendant to allege conduct attributable to the state.

Lopez v. The Heritage of Pride, Inc. · filed 2019-12-03

Because Plaintiff does not allege that their actions are attributable to the state, Plaintiff does not state a § 1983 claim against them, and they are dismissed.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law violated a federal right.

Brantley v. Tampa Police Department · filed 2019-12-03

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” ... Furthermore, Plaintiff does not provide enough facts regarding the organizations allegedly responsible for discriminating against her to determine if the organizations’ actions would be attributable to the state.

A § 1983 claim against a private defendant requires allegations that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Arias v. City of Everett · filed 2019-12-04

In sum, the plaintiffs have not met their burden of alleging that the Home Depot Defendants acted under color of state law. Therefore, their motion to dismiss Count II of the Complaint, alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is allowed.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted as a state actor.

Van Daam v. Meadows · filed 2019-12-06

In addition, it is unclear from Plaintiff's allegations how Mildner was acting as a state actor during the relevant time period, such that he can be held liable under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires an allegation of a state actor.

Lynch v. Nowland · filed 2019-12-13

Lynch and Dunning have not stated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for false arrest because there is no allegation of a state actor.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to be a state actor; a legal aid contractor performing traditional counsel duties is not a state actor absent state control or supervision.

Kaminski v. Semple · filed 2019-12-18

To be liable under § 1983, a defendant must be a state actor. ... Because Kaminski offered no allegation that Bansley performed duties outside the traditional counselʹs role, or that DOC controlled or supervised Bansley, he failed to sufficiently allege that Bansley was a state actor.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant violated a federal right while acting under color of state law.

Bea v. Interfaith Medical Center · filed 2019-12-18

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s federal rights while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Feng v. County of Santa Clara · filed 2019-12-26

The court dismisses Ms. Feng’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment against Dr. Piotrowski and Mr. Tan for failure to plead that they are state actors or acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law.

RODRIGUES v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. · filed 2019-12-27

Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege that Defendant is a state actor and/or was acting under color of state law. Counts 1 and 3 are dismissed.

A criminal defense attorney is not a state actor merely by representing a defendant and cannot be liable under Section 1983 on that basis.

JONES v. KELLY · filed 2019-12-27

Third, Defendant Douglas Dolfman cannot be liable under Section 1983 because, as Mr. Jones’s defense counsel, he is not a state actor.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a fellow inmate solely because the inmate is in state custody; the defendant’s conduct must be attributable to the state.

Brooks v. Bausman · filed 2019-12-31

Brooks may not sue Jowers, a fellow inmate, under § 1983. ... The mere fact that Jowers is an inmate in the custody of the State of Tennessee does not transform him into a state actor.

Section 1983 does not cover private conduct without facts connecting the defendants’ actions to the state; a conclusory allegation that they acted under color of law is insufficient.

ALLEN v. TRI-LIFT NORTH CAROLINA, INC. · filed 2020-01-07

Since this legal conclusion is not accepted as true, the court concludes that Defendants’ actions as alleged constitute private action that does not implicate § 1983.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a private defendant acted under color of state law; a conclusory allegation of collusion with the state is insufficient.

PATEL v. CRIST · filed 2020-01-07

Moreover, outside of the conclusory allegation that Allstate is acting in collusion with the State of New Jersey, Plaintiffs fail to plead any facts by which the Court could conclude that any of Allstate actions could be construed as state action.

A § 1983 complaint against a private individual must plausibly allege state action.

Ferguson v. Waid · filed 2020-01-08

Moreover, Ferguson’s Complaint does not plausibly allege “state action,” as required to plead a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 permits liability against a private medical center only if it is a state actor.

PASCALE v. OCEAN MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2020-01-08

In addition, Ocean County Medical Center (and/or its personnel) appears to be a private party and therefore is only liable under § 1983 if it can “fairly said to be a state actor.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982). There are no factual allegations to suggest that Ocean County Medical Center is a state actor, and the Complaint against Ocean County Medical Center is subject to dismissal on this basis as well.

Section 1983 generally requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; a private utility’s installation and use of a SmartMeter does not satisfy that requirement.

Klein v. Met Ed · filed 2020-01-08

Therefore, to the extent that a complaint seeks to hold a private party liable for alleged civil rights violations, it fails to state a valid cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 since the statute typically requires a showing that the defendants are state actors.

Section 1983 does not cover purely private conduct; a defendant must act under color of state law.

Gonzalez v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2020-01-09

Purely private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not covered under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a private defendant acted under color of state law, including through joint activity with a state actor.

Porter v. Hladky · filed 2020-01-09

Nor does Plaintiff sufficiently allege that Game was a willful participant in joint activity with a state actor, Zrake.

Section 1983 requires facts plausibly showing that a defendant acted under color of state law.

Nutter v. Mellinger · filed 2020-01-13

First, plaintiffs have not plead any facts to plausibly allege state action, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A court-appointed guardian exercising independent professional judgment is not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983.

Galanova v. Portnoy · filed 2020-01-13

However, guardians, “although appointed by a court, exercise independent professional judgment in the interests of the clients they represent and are therefore not state actors for purposes of Section 1983.”

Section 1983 does not impose liability on defendants who are not alleged to be state actors.

WILLIAMS v. FRANCOIS-WILLIAMS · filed 2020-01-13

There is no allegation that these Defendants are state actors and, therefore, they are not subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Chavez v. Finney · filed 2020-01-15

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.”

Section 1983 requires a sufficient nexus between the state and challenged private conduct to establish state action.

Mendez v. California Teachers Association · filed 2020-01-16

Further, there is no alleged nexus between the State and Superintendents’ actions and the alleged wrongful conduct of the Union defendants such as establish state action for purposes of section 1983 liability.

Section 1983 requires allegations that a private defendant acted under color of state law; allegations that do not show state action fail to state a claim against that defendant.

Savvidis v. McQuaid · filed 2020-01-16

Accepting all of Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as the Court must in the context of this inquiry, Plaintiff has failed to make any allegations that CHL is a state actor for purposes of a section 1983 claim, or that CHL’s actions, as a private party, constitute state action under section 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat private attorneys or the Inmates' Legal Assistance Program as state actors.

Gray v. Bansley / Anthony / Burdo LLC · filed 2020-01-21

Neither a private attorney nor the Inmates' Legal Assistance Program may be considered to be state actors for purposes of Section 1983.

Section 1983 applies to state actors, not federal officials acting under color of federal law.

Bruce v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2020-01-22

Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that Plaintiff cannot bring constitutional claims against them pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the statute only applies to state actors, and not federal officials acting under color of federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a private defendant to allege that the defendant is a state actor or facts that would support treating it as one.

Covarrubias v. Arthrex, Inc. · filed 2020-01-23

However, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a § 1983 claim. In order to assert a § 1983 violation, Plaintiff must allege that Anthrex is a state actor, or that factual circumstances exist that would allow Anthrex to be viewed as a state actor under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a dismissal as state action merely because the decisionmakers hold roles at both a public university and a closely connected private institution.

Schwartz v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine · filed 2020-01-29

However, the closeness of this relationship and the dual roles of Drs. Risma, Bernstein, and Filak at the public and private institutions are insufficient to render their dismissal of Schwartz state action.

Section 1983 generally does not impose liability on private parties who do not act under color of state law.

Ochei v. Lapes · filed 2020-01-31

As Defendants Alan Lapes and 317 Aladdin Hotel Corporation are private parties who do not work for any state or other government body, Plaintiff has not stated a claim against these Defendants under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide a malpractice claim against court-appointed counsel because appointed counsel is not a state actor.

Cruts v. Travis County Correctional Complex · filed 2020-02-03

Roberto L. Rodriguez, Plaintiff’s court-appointed counsel, is not a state actor. An action which is essentially a tort claim for malpractice against appointed counsel cannot be brought under §1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Sandy v. Baca Grande Property Owners Association, The · filed 2020-02-05

In the absence of any indication that Defendants acted under color of state law, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law violated a federal right; a private party’s conduct must be attributable to the state.

Calvino v. Bronx Work Staff · filed 2020-02-06

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or law of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” ... Here, Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting that BronxWorks or its employees took actions that can be attributed to the government.

A union does not act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes when it collects dues under voluntary membership agreements and the state controller merely processes the deductions.

Quirarte v. United Domestic Workers AFSCME Local 3930 · filed 2020-02-10

In conclusion, Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy any of the tests to find that the Union is a state actor and have failed to allege facts tending to show that the Union acted under color of state law or authority.

A university's alleged contract with a city to determine rent-stabilized tenants' rights does not by itself make the university a public entity for a § 1983 claim.

Wiltz v. New York University · filed 2020-02-10

But, as the Report and Recommendation correctly concluded, even assuming that NYU had an agreement with New York City to “judge the rights of rent stabilized tenants,” Objections at 5-6, any contract between NYU and the City still would not turn NYU into a public entity as a matter of law.

Section 1983 reaches a private hospital and its employees only when their challenged conduct is fairly attributable to the state.

Edwards v. Feldman · filed 2020-02-10

Overall, regardless of the test applied, Plaintiff has failed to establish that ORMC and its employees are state actors under Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires state action; a complaint alleging no relationship to the state or state actors fails that element.

Chafin v. Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus · filed 2020-02-11

There are no allegations in the complaint before this Court that suggest state action. No relationship to the state or state actors has been asserted.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; a private entity with no alleged connection to the state does not meet that requirement.

Harris v. CHSP · filed 2020-02-13

To bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants violated his federal rights while acting under color of state law. ... The plaintiff makes no allegations connecting Shmira to the state. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a private person who did not act under color of state law.

Jacobs v. New York State Corrections & Community Supervision · filed 2020-02-14

The plaintiff's fellow inmate, Zaire Maddox, cannot be sued under Section 1983 because he is a private person, not a state actor.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim against a federal agency because it is not a state actor.

(PS) Miner v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-18

But plaintiff brings this action against the SSA, a federal agency, and not a state actor.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a private party who acts jointly with state actors, but the plaintiff must plead plausible facts supporting that joint activity.

Stephens v. Kenney · filed 2020-02-20

It is true that a private party will be deemed a state actor for purposes of § 1983 liability if he or she has engaged in joint activity with state actors, Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 941 (1982), but Stephens failed to allege plausible facts sufficient to support a claim of joint activity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on private parties merely because a state official acquiesces in their actions.

Janny v. Gamez · filed 2020-02-21

At most, Plaintiff has adduced evidence that the state acquiesced in the actions of Defendants Carmack and Konstanty; this is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they were state actors.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a private housing provider’s challenged conduct is attributable to the state; providing housing and supportive services alone does not establish state action.

Toliver v. The City of New York · filed 2020-02-21

Here, Plaintiff does not plead any facts suggesting that, in providing housing and supportive services to him, Project Renewal is performing a public function or is using the coercive power of the government. Because Plaintiff does not allege facts showing that Project Renewal and its employees are state actors, his allegations that Project Renewal employees unlawfully searched his property or limited the medication that he could bring to the facility while he was stayed in its facilities do not state a claim under § 1983 for violating his constitutional rights.

When a § 1983 plaintiff invokes federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331, state action is an element of the claim rather than a prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction.

Matthews v. Kofol · filed 2020-02-24

But “[o]rdinarily, § 1983 plaintiffs assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the state action requirement is treated only as an element of the claim.” Id. at 768 (citation omitted). That is the case here, and because jurisdiction clearly exists under § 1331, the magistrate judge’s findings with respect to § 1343 are unnecessary.

Section 1983 does not cover a claim against a federal actor; the court construes such a claim under Bivens.

ELANSARI v. KEARNEY · filed 2020-02-24

Although Elansari primarily cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for his claims, the Court will construe the Complaint as having been brought pursuant to Bivens because the Defendant is a federal actor, not a state actor.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a claim against a private organization and its employees fails without allegations showing they are state actors.

MILLER v. C.A.D.E.S. · filed 2020-02-26

To the extent, therefore, that Mr. Miller is raising claims on his own behalf, any federal constitutional claims against CADES, Zakia Wootson-Scott, and the unidentified employees of CADES must be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) because § 1983 claims against these non-state actors are not plausible.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against a private complainant or defense attorneys performing traditional counsel functions because they are not state actors.

Williams v. Penman · filed 2020-02-28

Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims against the criminal sexual conduct victim and the private attorneys named in his pleadings are also subject to dismissal because those defendants are not state actors subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires state action; a private party’s prosecution of a civil matter or purchase of property at a sheriff’s sale does not alone support liability.

TEMPLIN v. WEAKNECHT · filed 2020-03-02

Again, Templin only alleges wrongdoing by a private actor, which cannot support liability under § 1983.

A private party can be a state actor under § 1983 when its joint activity with the state makes its conduct fairly attributable to the state.

Siefert v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs · filed 2020-03-03

And when the distinction between the state and private party breaks down to that degree, a private party becomes a state actor in § 1983 cases.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a private defendant to allege facts showing that the defendant’s conduct was state action.

Domino v. California Correctional Health Care Services · filed 2020-03-03

Here, Plaintiff has named as a defendant “AFSCME Local 2620,” but has not alleged any facts that this defendant’s actions should be considered those of the state for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause or Section 1983 liability.

Section 1983 requires proof of state action; a private university that did not act under color of state law when disciplining a student cannot be held liable under it.

Doe v. Loyola University · filed 2020-03-03

Because Loyola is not a state actor nor is there any evidence that it was engaged in state action in disciplining Doe, the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim must be dismissed on summary judgment for the additional reason that the plaintiff has not proved the essential state-action element of his § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not cover a private university’s employment decision without a sufficiently close connection between the state and that decision.

PONSFORD v. MERCYHURST UNIVERSITY · filed 2020-03-04

For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendant is not a state actor for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and will dismiss those claims.

Section 1983 claims against a private insurer require allegations that the insurer’s conduct constitutes state action.

Lopez v. Housing Solutions of the Southwest · filed 2020-03-06

The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s federal claims against Allstate be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to allege that Allstate’s conduct constitutes state action. (Id. at 46–47.) ... Finding no clear error, the Court adopts this part of the Recommendation.

Section 1983 claims require facts showing that the defendant acted as a state actor.

Thomas v. Thurston · filed 2020-03-06

his claims under Section 1983 failed because those claims may be brought only against state actors and the SAC “contain[ed] no factual allegations suggesting that Thurston behaved as a state actor.” ... As to his claims under Title VII and Section 1983, Plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficient to cure the deficiencies identified in the Order, and these claims are therefore dismissed for the same reasons previously articulated.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted as a state actor.

Escalera v. Samaritan Village Men's Shelter · filed 2020-03-06

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the shelter are dismissed because he fails to allege that the shelter is a state actor.

Section 1983 generally does not allow claims against private parties who do not act under color of state law.

Coleson v. Parker · filed 2020-03-06

The named defendants are private parties who do not work for any state or other government body. Plaintiff therefore cannot state a claim against these defendants under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires allegations that the defendant acted under color of state law.

PRATER v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMP. · filed 2020-03-10

Nothing in the Complaint suggests that any of the Defendants could be considered state actors so there is no basis for a § 1983 claim against them.

Section 1983 does not treat criminal defense attorneys performing their traditional duties as state actors.

HORSCH v. MAHON · filed 2020-03-11

Because criminal defense attorneys are not “state actors” under § 1983, the constitutional claims against Hyde must be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 does not permit suit against private advocacy groups merely because they share a goal with the government.

Spellman v. Disability Rights Wisconsin Inc · filed 2020-03-16

This is not newly discovered evidence, either; the court previously noted that DRW and the NDRN are non-profit advocacy groups, distinct from state actors and exempt from suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. ... But the fact that the agencies share a goal with the federal government (or the state government, for that matter) does not make them state actors.

Section 1983 does not permit constitutional claims against strictly private persons.

Perdomo v. OSAH · filed 2020-03-20

Perdomo cannot assert constitutional claims against strictly private persons.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; a private person who is not a state actor cannot be liable under it.

Pollok v. Office of the Sheriff · filed 2020-03-23

Because we hold the claims against the City Defendants were properly dismissed and because Chen is not a state actor who could otherwise be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we affirm the judgment in favor of Chen.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a private defendant’s challenged conduct is attributable to the government.

Kellier v. Acosta · filed 2020-03-23

Plaintiff brings § 1983 claims against the NAICA defendants, but he does not assert facts suggesting that their actions are attributable to the government. For this reason, Plaintiff does not state a claim under § 1983 against the NAICA defendants.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; private individuals who are not state actors cannot be held liable under it.

Smith v. Mathis · filed 2020-03-27

Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, it appears that these Defendants are private individuals and not state actors. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under section 1983 against Courtney Mathis, Gussie Mathis, or Wesley Turner.

A private party’s conduct supports a Section 1983 claim only when the conduct is fairly attributable to the state.

VDARE Foundation v. City of Colorado Springs · filed 2020-03-27

VDARE’s Amended Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations that show Cheyenne Resort’s cancellation constituted state action.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendants acted under color of state law.

Guinard v. Tarry Law Firm, LLC · filed 2020-03-27

First, plaintiff does not allege that defendants are state actors.

A Section 1983 claim against a private employer must identify the employer as a state actor or otherwise show why it is subject to the statute.

Martinez v. U.S. Parking · filed 2020-03-31

However, the named defendant, U.S. Parking, appears to be a private valet service that is not identified as a state actor or otherwise subject to Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires state action; private parties may be liable when they act jointly with the state or its agents.

Harris v. Gentile · filed 2020-03-31

Here, Plaintiff’s purported section 1983 claim against Defendants NP Dodge Realty Company, Gordon, and Brown is not cognizable because these Defendants are not state actors, and Plaintiff has not alleged that these Defendants were engaged in joint action with the state or its agents such that their actions can be characterized as actions of the state.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a complaint that does not allege a connection between private defendants and state actors fails to state a claim.

IWU v. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA DELAWARE VALLEY · filed 2020-03-31

In this case, none of the named defendants appear to be “state actors.” ... To that end, the Complaint contains no allegation that Defendants conspired with state actors to invade Plaintiff’s privacy through any unlawful search or seizure. As such, Plaintiff’s causes of action under Section 1983 (Counts I and VI) must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Counsel substitutes assigned to assist an inmate at a disciplinary hearing are not state actors, so their alleged negligence does not support a § 1983 claim.

Frazier v. Moore · filed 2020-04-02

Because they were not state actors, their alleged negligence does not raise a claim for relief under 42 US.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a federal claim against a person who is not a state actor.

Moss v. Schimp · filed 2020-04-02

A plaintiff cannot proceed with a federal claim under Section 1983 against a non-state actor.

Section 1983 requires a private union to act under color of state law before it can be liable for depriving someone of a federal right.

Alston v. Town of Brookline · filed 2020-04-02

In the absence of any such evidence of state action on the part of the Union, the § 1983 claim cannot be sustained.

A private attorney does not become a state actor under § 1983 merely by holding a state license to practice law.

Szymonik v. State of CT · filed 2020-04-03

Yagaloff, as a private attorney, was not a state actor; that he was licensed by the state to practice law does not render him a state actor.

Section 1983 requires conduct attributable to the state; representation by a private attorney alone does not establish state action.

Lindsey v. Exum · filed 2020-04-03

However, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Mr. Exum was a state actor for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a defense attorney performing counsel’s duties because the attorney is not a state actor.

Thomas v. Roth · filed 2020-04-07

Defendant Shah is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 requires the challenged conduct to be performed under color of state law; private citizens who are not state actors cannot be sued under it.

WILSON v. JOHN DOE GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - DELAWARE COUNTY PRISON · filed 2020-04-08

As this Court previously noted, Section 1983 requires that an individual acting under color of state law engaged in the conduct allegedly violative of the Constitution. ... There is no basis alleged in Wilson’s Amended Complaint to determine that these Defendants are state actors. Accordingly, the federal constitutional claims asserted against them must be dismissed with prejudice for a second time.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law; identifying defendants as a bank and its employees does not establish that they were state actors.

MATHIS v. BENDER · filed 2020-04-08

Mathis has not alleged facts to support a plausible conclusion that any of the remaining named Defendants meet any of the foregoing tests for determining whether a defendant is acting under color of state law; and nothing in the Complaint suggests any factual or legal basis for considering that the Defendants are state actors who could be held liable under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a private citizen does not become a state actor merely by reporting a crime to police.

Alvarez v. Peters · filed 2020-04-09

Because Section 1983 imposes liability for constitutional violations caused by state actors only, Chen, a private party, cannot be held liable for violating Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a private defendant acted under color of state law.

Pessima v. The Executive Director · filed 2020-04-09

Pessima does not assert facts that allege that the defendant has become a state actor to support a claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim based solely on private conduct, even if that conduct is discriminatory or wrongful.

Al Maqablh v. Carter · filed 2020-04-10

Private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful, is not actionable under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; a private store owner is not liable under the section for a personal injury claim without state action.

Kelly v. Friends Mart · filed 2020-04-13

Plaintiff names as a Defendant a private individual, not a state actor. Thus, even if Plaintiff has a viable state law personal injury action against the owner of Friends Mart, he fails to state a claim against the owner under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not reach a private supermarket or its employees without allegations that they acted under color of state law.

Rodriguez v. Shoprite Supermarket · filed 2020-04-15

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged state action, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims are not plausible and are thus DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) (2)(B)(i)-(ii), 1915A(b)(1).

Section 1983 requires the defendant to be a state actor.

Bradley v. Farrell · filed 2020-04-16

Finally, King was not a state actor for § 1983 purposes.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a private counselor for providing medical care when her conduct is not attributable to the state.

Davis v. Willheim · filed 2020-04-17

Because Willheim counseled the Child in her “capacity as a private provider of medical care,” Kia P. v. McIntyre, 235 F.3d 749, 756 (2d Cir. 2000), she is not subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing private defendants to plausibly allege that they acted under color of state law.

Hannan v. Torres-Springer · filed 2020-04-17

Because the Complaint does not plausibly allege that the moving Defendants are state actors, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 and New York State constitution claims will be dismissed.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a private defendant to show that the defendant’s challenged conduct is attributable to the state.

Barker v. Women In Need, Inc. · filed 2020-04-20

Plaintiff brings § 1983 claims against theWIN and St. Vincent defendants, but she does not assert facts suggesting that their actions are attributable to the City of New York. For this reason, Plaintiff does not state a claim under § 1983 against these defendants.

Section 1983 requires conduct fairly attributable to the state; a private restaurant is not liable without facts showing state action.

Reid v. Aubrey's Restaurant Inc. · filed 2020-04-20

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would suggest that Defendant’s conduct is in any way fairly attributable to the state. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot succeed on his claim under § 1983 and that claim is DISMISSED.

Section 1983 requires factual allegations connecting a private union’s conduct to state action.

Barnes v. Hanford Superior Court Judge · filed 2020-04-21

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations do not provide the required nexus to state a claim against the CCPOA under section 1983.

A newspaper and its employee are not state actors for purposes of a Section 1983 claim.

Dale v. Mayfield Messenger · filed 2020-04-21

Any constitutional claims Plaintiff seeks to bring against Defendants under § 1983 must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because a newspaper and its employee are not state actors.

Section 1983 requires sufficient allegations that the defendants acted under color of state law.

Harris, Jr. v. Barnes · filed 2020-04-21

To properly assert a claim under section 1983, Plaintiff must state sufficient allegations that Defendants were acting under color of state law.

A private hospital and its staff are not state actors under § 1983 when they involuntarily commit a patient under New York’s Mental Hygiene Law.

Grazette v. Rockefeller · filed 2020-04-21

A private hospital and its staff are not state actors under § 1983 when they involuntarily commit a plaintiff to a psychiatric hospital under New York’s Mental Hygiene Law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federally protected right by a state actor.

Thomas v. St. Louis City Justice Center · filed 2020-04-22

It appears plaintiff intends to proceed against these defendants under § 1983, but his allegations do not state viable § 1983 claims. Plaintiff neither alleges the violation of a federally-protected right, nor alleges the defendants were state actors.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a fellow inmate who is not a state actor.

Coleman v. Ward · filed 2020-04-23

Moreover, he cannot state a claim under section 1983 against Graham as he is not a state actor subject to suit under 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that the defendant acted under color of state law; a private party may qualify as a state actor through state compulsion, a public function, or joint action with the state.

Stevens v. Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 219 · filed 2020-04-27

All defendants are private entities or individuals, and none of the three conditions are met for establishing that any of these private parties has acted under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a sufficiently close nexus between a private defendant’s challenged conduct and the State for that conduct to be treated as state action.

Gitzis v. Nozhnik · filed 2020-04-27

Moreover, she does not particularize how Defendants in these two cases have a sufficiently close nexus to the State with respect to the challenged action, such that their private behavior may be treated as that of the State itself.

Section 1983 requires a sufficiently close nexus between a private defendant’s challenged conduct and the State for that conduct to count as state action.

Gitzis v. Charles · filed 2020-04-27

Given Plaintiff Galanova’s pro se status, the Court liberally construes her § 407 claim as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Moreover, she does not particularize how Defendants in these two cases have a sufficiently close nexus to the State with respect to the challenged action, such that their private behavior may be treated as that of the State itself.

Section 1983’s state action requirement can be met when a state official fails to perform a duty to prevent a deprivation of federal rights.

John Doe, et al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, et al. · filed 2020-04-30

In light of the court’s construction of the procedures set forth in RSA 135-C:27-33, the plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to allege state action for purposes of Count I.

Section 1983 requires state action; a private landlord’s eviction does not support a claim without facts connecting the landlord’s conduct to the state.

Dorman v. Palm Beach County · filed 2020-04-30

Because the Amended Complaint alleges no state action, it states no claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim of state action when a state official allegedly fails to provide probable cause hearings required by state law.

Doe v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner · filed 2020-04-30

A failure to comply with this statutory duty constitutes state action.

Section 1983 requires allegations that the defendant acted under color of state law; a private restaurant cannot be sued under the section without them.

Perez v. State of New York · filed 2020-04-30

Plaintiff has not alleged suggesting that Taco Rico of New York acted under color of state law, or could be deemed to be a state actor. Plaintiff therefore cannot assert a § 1983 claim against this defendant.

Section 1983’s state action requirement can be satisfied by an official’s failure to act when the official has a duty to do so.

John Doe, et al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services1 · filed 2020-05-01

A failure to act, despite a duty to do so, however, is state action for purposes of liability under § 1983.

A state official’s failure to perform a statutory duty can satisfy § 1983’s state-action requirement.

Doe v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner · filed 2020-05-01

A failure to comply with these statutory duties constitutes state action. Clark, 710 F.2d at 9. Therefore, the hospitals have sufficiently alleged state action to support their claims under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a private defendant’s challenged conduct to be fairly attributable to the state.

Dufresne v. Camden-Wyoming Fire Company Inc. · filed 2020-05-05

In this case, an application of each of these tests demonstrates that Defendants are not state actors for purposes of Section 1983 because their actions were not fairly attributable to the State.

Section 1983 does not treat every private entity that detains people under a state court order as a state actor.

Doe v. North Homes, Inc. · filed 2020-05-11

Not all private entities that detain individuals, even pursuant to an order issued by a state court, are state actors for purposes of Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires state action; a private company’s compliance with a court order alone does not make it a state actor.

Thompson v. Virden · filed 2020-05-12

Only persons acting under color of state law may be sued under § 1983. ... But a private party’s mere compliance with a court order does not constitute state action.

Section 1983 requires a private defendant to act under color of state law; complying with a court order alone does not make the defendant a state actor.

Banks v. Opat · filed 2020-05-12

Only persons acting under color of state law may be sued under § 1983. ... But a private party’s mere compliance with a court order does not constitute state action. ... Thus, Mr. Banks failed to allege Sprint’s compliance with Judge Platt’s order constitutes state action.

Section 1983 permits suit against a private company's employee who provides medical care at a county jail under contract with the county.

James v. Hale · filed 2020-05-14

Hale was employed by a private company that contracted with St. Clair County to provide medical care, so she was a state actor amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits claims against state actors and private parties who willfully participate in joint action with the state or its agents.

Thompson v. Sullivan · filed 2020-05-19

The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in concluding that Thompson had failed to state a claim against the Jennings Defendants for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim because the Jennings Defendants are not state actors and § 1983 supports a claim for a violation of an individual’s civil rights by state actors or private parties that are “willful participant[s] in joint action with the State or its agents.” Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003).

Section 1983 requires a private defendant’s challenged conduct to be fairly attributable to the state; using state procedures alone does not establish state action.

Silva v. U.S. Bank National Assoc. · filed 2020-05-20

To state a cause of action against private individuals under § 1983, the challenged conduct must be “fairly attributable to the state.” ... Ms. Silva relied strictly on these private defendants’ use of state processes to support her theory of state action, which is not enough for the conduct to be fairly attributable to the state.

A private landlord is not liable under § 1983 when its alleged conduct is not attributable to the state.

Wright v. California Square 1 Apartments Corporation · filed 2020-05-20

Thus, in the instant case Plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirement that the allegedly unconstitutional acts were committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires state action; sufficiently alleged state action defeats an objection to class certification based on its absence.

John Doe, et al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, et al. · filed 2020-05-22

As is noted above, in denying the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, the court held that RSA 135-C:39 does not apply to involuntary emergency admissions under RSA 135-C:27-33 and that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged state action to avoid dismissal. ... Therefore, the Commissioner’s theory that class certification must be denied due to a lack of state action fails.

Merely assisting police with a child abuse investigation does not make a private doctor a joint actor subject to § 1983 liability.

Manda v. Albin · filed 2020-05-22

Simply assisting police with a child abuse investigation did not render Defendant Albin a joint actor.

Section 1983 generally requires a defendant to be a state actor; a claim against private parties needs facts showing they acted under color of law.

Brownlee v. A John Doe Agent of the Monroe County Children and Youth Agency · filed 2020-05-26

To the extent that a complaint seeks to hold private parties liable for alleged civil rights violations, it fails to state a valid cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 since the statute typically requires a showing that the defendants are state actors.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing private defendants to show that they acted as state actors.

DAVIS v. MARIANO · filed 2020-05-27

Davis has brought a constitutional claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bank of America, Shellpoint, the Ocean County Sheriff and the New Jersey Judiciary. ... In this case, with respect to Bank of America and Shellpoint, Davis has not shown that Bank of America or Shellpoint are state actors.