42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 applies only to persons acting under color of state law, so First Amendment claims against a federal agency do not proceed under it.

Murphy v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2019-07-11

However, the Plaintiff’s claims are properly considered under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), not under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a private citizen as a state actor merely for calling the police, filing a police report, or participating in court proceedings.

Lee v. Lee · filed 2019-07-12

A private citizen does not transform himself into a state actor simply by calling the police, filing a police report, or participating in court proceedings.

A criminal defense attorney, even an appointed public defender, does not act under color of state law when representing a defendant and therefore cannot be sued under § 1983 for that representation.

Franscoviak v. Starkes · filed 2019-07-17

The actions of a criminal defense attorney, even an appointed public defender, are not fairly attributable to the State and the attorney is not acting under color of state law.

An emergency room doctor is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983.

Jones v. Miller · filed 2019-07-17

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Dr. Smith is not a proper Defendant in this action, as an emergency room doctor is not a State actor for purposes of § 1983.

Jail officers performing their duties act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

Armalin v. Grant County Jail · filed 2019-07-22

There is no question that the Officers at the jail were acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not treat attorneys as state actors merely because they take an oath required to practice law under a state statute.

Gibson v. Tin · filed 2019-07-24

Plaintiff’s claim does not lie under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Attorneys are not state actors merely because they take an oath relative to their practice of law pursuant to a State statute.

Section 1983 does not cover private foreclosure participants who use Louisiana’s executory process after the debtor has an opportunity to contest the seizure, absent joint action with the state.

Lee v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2019-07-25

The Court concludes that the GAA Defendants did not act “under color of state law” and Lee’s § 1983 claim against them should be dismissed.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest by a government actor; the private insurer’s denial of benefits did not meet that requirement.

Davis v. The Standard Insurance Company · filed 2019-07-25

A claim for a civil rights violation under § 1983 must be based on a deprivation of a liberty or property interest that is protected by the United States Constitution. Said deprivation must have been committed by the government or a governmental agency.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim against a person acting under color of federal law.

Burmaster v. American Psychiatric Assoc. · filed 2019-07-29

Specifically, we agree with the district court that Burmaster’s complaint did not state a claim under Section 1983, see Jones v. United States, 16 F.3d 979, 981 (8th Cir. 1994) (Section 1983 is inapplicable when person acts under color of federal law); under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), see Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 71 (2001) (no right of action under Bivens for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law); or under RICO, see Crest Constr. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346, 355–58 (8th Cir. 2011) (RICO claim was properly dismissed where plaintiffs failed to plead RICO elements of enterprise, pattern of racketeering activity, and at least two predicate acts committed by defendant).

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

Green v. Creighton/CHI Health · filed 2019-07-29

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the deprivation of that right was committed by a person acting under color of state law. ... Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any allegations reasonably suggesting Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights while acting under color of state law.

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

Jackson, Jr. v. Magoon Estates Limited · filed 2019-07-30

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. ... Jackson asserts only state law tort claims, including negligence and medical malpractice, and does not allege or explain how any named Defendant was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a criminal defense attorney for providing representation because the attorney does not act under color of state law.

Newman v. Luber · filed 2019-07-30

However, a criminal defense attorney does not act under color of state law.

Section 1983’s color-of-law requirement is plausibly met when a public employee’s alleged misconduct has a real nexus to her official authority.

Taylor v. Thomas · filed 2019-07-31

Accordingly, plaintiff has adequately alleged the existence of a real nexus between Henson’s conduct and her “badge” of public authority.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law; a private hospital and its physicians do not become state actors merely by declining a collaborative practice agreement.

Gorenc v. Klaassen · filed 2019-08-01

To advance a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts capable of supporting a finding that defendants acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 applies to deprivations of constitutional rights committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Huntley v. Preston · filed 2019-08-01

Therefore, his claims cannot be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which applies only to deprivations of constitutional rights ... committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of law; an attorney’s representation of a client alone does not satisfy that requirement.

Chadman v. Quisenberry · filed 2019-08-02

As Chadman has not shown that his attorneys were acting under color of law, any claim for violation of his constitutional rights asserted through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the attorney defendants must be dismissed.

Section 1983 requires the alleged deprivation to be committed by a person acting under color of law.

Gragg v. Humane Society of Central Illinois · filed 2019-08-06

Because a § 1983 claim requires that the deprivation be committed by a person acting under color of law, Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim against Defendant.

A correctional officer working for a state department of corrections acts under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983.

Whitman v. Hinton · filed 2019-08-09

Finally, Defendant was acting under color of state law at the time of the attack as he was working as a correctional officer for the Georgia Department of Corrections.

A defense attorney performing traditional duties as counsel, including a public defender, does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

Williams v. Underwood · filed 2019-08-09

It is firmly established that a defense attorney, regardless of whether she is a public defender or private attorney, does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff bringing a constitutional hostile work environment claim to show that the defendant acted under color of law.

Brown v. Cook County · filed 2019-08-12

The plaintiffs' hostile work environmental claims arise under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (via 42 U.S.C. § 1983). ... The constitutional claims have the same elements, with the added requirement that the plaintiffs show the defendants acted under color of law.

Section 1983 generally does not reach private conduct, and employees of a private hotel do not act under color of state law by virtue of that employment.

Linardon v. Castillo · filed 2019-08-12

The defendants, as employees of a private hotel, would not fall under the “color of state law” within the meaning of Section 1983.

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

Majors v. Coffee County · filed 2019-08-12

Further, nothing in the complaint allows the Court to plausibly infer that Defendants Thomas, Swallows, or Peters were state actors in the incident underlying Plaintiff’s complaint as required for them to be subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law.

Sanchez v. Duke · filed 2019-08-13

The problem with plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is simply an inability to show that the defendant she has named, who is the secretary of a federal agency, was acting under color of state (as opposed to federal) law.

A defense attorney representing a client in a state criminal case does not act under color of law for purposes of § 1983.

Mendez v. Thomas · filed 2019-08-13

Southern did not act under color of law for purposes of § 1983.

A private contractor providing food service in a prison acts under color of state law for Section 1983 purposes.

PURVIS v. BEDWELL · filed 2019-08-13

Because Aramark acts under color of state law by contracting to perform a government function – providing food service to correctional facilities, it is treated as a government entity for purposes of Section 1983 claims.

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

Richter v. Campbell · filed 2019-08-13

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the deprivation of that right was committed by a person acting under color of state law. ... Here, Plaintiff does not allege any violation of her constitutional rights, and the Complaint lacks any indication that Defendant is a state actor.

A supervisory public defender does not act under color of state law for Section 1983 when training or supervising a subordinate’s legal representation.

DEVERICKS v. SHERWOOD · filed 2019-08-14

A supervisory public defender is not acting in an investigative or administrative function when supervising or training a subordinate public defender regarding the provision of legal representation because such functions are controlled by canons of professional responsibility guiding a private attorney.

Section 1983 reaches a state legislator’s decision to block a critic from a Twitter account she controls in her official capacity when she acts to exclude criticism of her public role.

Campbell v. Reisch · filed 2019-08-16

In the absence of evidence suggesting Defendant blocked Plaintiff for any reason other than to exclude comments critical of Defendant’s role as a public official, the Court finds Defendant’s actions were under color of state law.

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

Richter v. Sprint/VMUSA · filed 2019-08-16

Because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants are persons acting under color of state law, she fails to state a § 1983 claim and, consequently, fails to set forth grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; serving as an informant for a DEA task force does not meet that requirement without an alleged conspiracy between state and federal actors.

Boudette v. Buffington · filed 2019-08-19

Therefore, because Plaintiffs do not allege that there was an illegal conspiracy between state and federal actors, Plaintiffs have failed to state a § 1983 claim against Defendant Sanders.

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

Obi v. Koehler · filed 2019-08-19

Private parties are therefore not generally liable under the statute. ... As Defendant Gary R. Rick 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, and Plaintiff’s claims against this Defendant are therefore dismissed.

Section 1983 requires the challenged conduct to be under color of state law; an employee’s act related to official duties does not support a claim based on separate, unrelated conduct.

DiDonato v. Panatera · filed 2019-08-20

DiDonato has alleged enough, at this stage, to show that Panatera acted under color of state law when he wrapped her head in a towel. But that action is not the basis of her Section 1983 claim, so her claim fails on this ground as well.

Section 1983 does not reach a private defense attorney unless the complaint plausibly alleges that the attorney acted jointly with state actors.

Jenkins v. Lawlor & Englert Law Firm · filed 2019-08-20

Nor can this Court plausibly infer from the Complaint that Lawlor was jointly engaged with state actors who themselves were violating Jenkins’ constitutional rights so that § 1983 liability would properly extend to him.

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

Drucklieb v. Ryan · filed 2019-08-20

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant was acting under color of state law while violating Plaintiff’s constitutional right to equal protection, this claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law and does not provide a claim against federal agents acting under color of federal law.

Lopez v. U.S. Probation Department · filed 2019-08-21

Therefore Plaintiff has not alleged either Defendant acted under color of state law and the Court dismisses the section 1983 claim.

A Section 1983 claim requires the defendant to act under color of law.

Saintal-Smith v. Albertson's LLC · filed 2019-08-22

Even if Plaintiff had properly raised Section 1983 to assert a violation of the First and Eighth Amendments, Plaintiff did not - allege that Defendants acted under “color of law,” which is not plausible given that Defendants are a private employer and its employees.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law; holding a court officer position alone does not establish that the officer acted under color of state law.

Pulizotto v. McMahon · filed 2019-08-23

Pulizotto has not plausibly alleged Mikos and Kantor acted under color of state law even though they held positions as courts officers.

Section 1983 treats a private party who willfully conspires with state officials to deprive someone of a constitutional right as acting under color of state law.

Rittenhouse Entertainment, Inc v. City of Wilkes-Barre · filed 2019-08-26

While they are not state actors, they are not immunized from liability because “a private party who willfully participates in a joint conspiracy with state officials to deprive a person of a constitutional right acts ‘under color of state law’ for purposes of [section] 1983.” Abbot v. Latshaw, 164 F.3d 141, 147–48 (3d Cir. 1998). And there is evidence that the College Defendants conspired with the City Defendants to shut down The Mines because of the race of its patrons.

A private person must act under color of state law to face § 1983 liability, and an inadequately pleaded conspiracy with state actors does not establish that element.

Sharma v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois · filed 2019-08-26

Ultimately, Sharma has not sufficiently pleaded that Friedman was involved in a conspiracy such that he acted under color of state law, which is an essential element of his § 1983 claims against Friedman.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; private attorneys do not meet that requirement merely by serving as officers of the court.

Loggins v. Darley Law Firm · filed 2019-08-26

“Private attorneys, by virtue of being officers of the court, do not act under color of state law within the meaning of section 1983.” ... Accordingly, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1983 requires state action; a government employee’s report of suspected criminal conduct to police, without more, does not satisfy that requirement.

KOUTZIS v. MELLEBY · filed 2019-08-28

Without more, a state or municipal employee reporting suspected criminal conduct to the police is not state action.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law; private conduct alone does not qualify.

Moye v. Burnside Firs LLC · filed 2019-08-31

Even when construing Plaintiff's Complaint liberally, he fails to state a § 1983 claim because there are no facts indicating that Defendant acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law violated the plaintiff’s federal rights.

James v. James · filed 2019-09-03

Unless a person “acting under color of state law” violated Mr. James’ federal rights, he has no civil rights claim in federal court.

Section 1983 requires a due process plaintiff to sue a state actor or someone acting under color of state law, including through joint activity with a state actor.

Torres v. The Blackstone Group · filed 2019-09-03

In order to bring a due process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must assert a legal claim against a state actor, or one who acts “under the color of state law.” ... Plaintiff does not allege that the Blackstone Group is a state actor. ... Nor has Plaintiff claimed that, in allegedly violating his due process rights, Defendant acted under color of state law by acting in “concert with [any] state actor,” or by acting as “a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.” ... Thus, this claim must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

A police officer who merely supplies facts for a prosecution as a witness does not act under color of state law for a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim.

Tedesco v. Peak · filed 2019-09-04

Where a police officer provides the underlying facts supporting a prosecution, without more, his or her role is “similar to that of any other witness” and is not under color of law for the purposes of a malicious prosecution claim.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; an officer’s alleged assault without a connection to official authority does not meet that requirement.

Mills v. Adams County Sheriff Dept. · filed 2019-09-04

The alleged rape occurred in the Plaintiff’s home and had no relation to police activities or police custody. Therefore, this §1983 claim must fail because the defendant did not act under color of state law as is required by the statute.

A Section 1983 claim requires factual allegations showing that the defendant acted under color of state law; a conclusory assertion is insufficient.

Shelton v. SWAIA · filed 2019-09-04

Although the Complaint makes the conclusory allegation that Defendant Coriz, an employee of Defendant SWAIA, was acting under color of state law, there are no factual allegations showing that Defendant Coriz or Defendant SWAIA are state actors.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a public defender for representing a criminal defendant because the defender is not acting under color of state law.

Murchison v. Butler · filed 2019-09-09

Defendant Buccanon—Plaintiff’s public defender during his criminal proceedings—is not subject to suit under section 1983. ... Defendant Buccanon was not acting under color of state law while representing Plaintiff in his criminal proceedings.

Section 1983 requires factual allegations showing that the defendant acted under color of state law; a bare allegation of city agency is insufficient.

Piccolo v. Singleton · filed 2019-09-09

Simply alleging that Singleton was acting as an agent of the City and under an apparent grant of authority by the City is insufficient.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; the court held that a privately employed tow truck driver did not meet that requirement.

Robinson v. Pintez · filed 2019-09-10

A privately-employed tow truck driver is not a “a person acting under state law” as required for a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 claims against individual officials may proceed when the complaint adequately alleges that they acted under color of state law during the alleged constitutional violations.

Hazzouri v. West Pittston Borough · filed 2019-09-10

As such, we find that the plaintiffs have adequately pled that the individual defendants were acting under color of state law during the alleged constitutional violations.

Section 1983 requires allegations that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s civil rights while acting under color of state law.

White v. McCasland · filed 2019-09-10

White does not allege that McCasland violated his civil rights or that she acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 treats an animal control officer as acting under color of state law when she exercises her official duties.

Gusek v. County of Tuscola · filed 2019-09-11

Galbenski did not act as a private citizen, but was exercising her job duties, and as such, will be held to be acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against private parties whose conduct is not under color of state law.

Gadson v. Kings Supreme Court · filed 2019-09-11

Because these private entities and persons do not act “under color of state law,” the plaintiff cannot sue them under Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; conduct taken under color of tribal law alone does not support a claim.

Oertwich v. Traditional Village of Togiak · filed 2019-09-12

However, § 1983 is premised on action taken under color of state law. Plaintiff does not allege that any act by the Tribe or tribal defendants was taken under color of state law. He is complaining about actions taken under color of tribal law. Count III must therefore be dismissed.

Section 1983 provides a remedy only against persons acting under color of state law.

Shull Jr v. The University of Queensland · filed 2019-09-12

To the extent Shull’s claims are alleged under § 1983 or Bivens, I dismiss them against the federal defendants because (1) § 1983 provides a remedy only “against persons acting under color of state law” and (2) “no Bivens-like cause of action is available against federal agencies or federal agents sued in their official capacities.” Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 538 F.3d 1250, 1257 (9th Cir. 2008).

Section 1983 permits a claim against a private party that willfully participates in joint activity with the State or its agents.

Clark v. Student Loan Finance Corporation · filed 2019-09-16

There is no plausible allegation that SLFC was a willful participant in a joint activity with the State or its agents such that it could be liable under the Fourteenth Amendment via Section 1983.

Section 1983 covers claims against police officers and sheriff’s officers acting under color of state law.

DAVIS v. BURKE · filed 2019-09-17

Accordingly, Defendants are all state actors for purpose of Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law and does not apply when a plaintiff sues only the Social Security Administration without alleging state action.

Szadkowski v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-17

As Plaintiff names only the SSA, and sets forth no indication that there was any action taken under the color of state law, Section 1983 does not apply.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against an inmate who was not a state actor.

Swan v. Butke · filed 2019-09-18

The plaintiff cannot sue Spivey under §1983, because Spivey was an inmate, not a state actor.

Section 1983 applies to persons acting under color of state law, not individuals acting under color of federal law.

Delgado-Rodriguez v. United States Postal Service · filed 2019-09-19

However, it cannot form the basis of an action against individuals acting under color of federal law. ... As such, Plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 necessarily fail.

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

(PC) Cardenas v. Edwards · filed 2019-09-20

However, he may not pursue a claim against a fellow inmate because an inmate is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 claims require the defendant to have acted under color of state law.

Brodigan v. Swink · filed 2019-09-20

This Court dismissed those claims on initial review because Plaintiff did “not allege, nor is it apparent, that [those] individuals were acting under color of state law.” (Doc. 9 at 7.) The allegations against those defendants are identical to those made in his first complaint. (Doc. 1.) Accordingly, the Court with grant Plaintiff’s motion in part as to his claims against the remaining defendants and deny it in part as to Roberts and Willmore, with directions to refile his amended complaint without those defendants or claims.

Section 1983 permits a claim for deprivation of federal rights only against a person acting under color of state law.

Harris v. Reynolds · filed 2019-09-20

Under Section 1983, individuals may bring a private cause of action for deprivations of their federal or constitutional rights against people who are “acting under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff alleging a federal constitutional violation to plausibly show that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Nora, Wendy v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2019-09-23

And without those conspiracy allegations, Nora fails to plausibly allege that Wells Fargo acted “under color of” state law, which is a necessary element of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of her rights under the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law; private actors may be liable if they jointly acted with state officials.

Clemens v. Local One, Service Employees International Union · filed 2019-09-23

Defendants are clearly private actors and Plaintiff has not alleged facts necessary to hold them liable for any alleged constitution violations pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 permits civil recovery for constitutional violations under color of state law and does not cover actions of the federal government.

Griffin v. United States · filed 2019-09-24

Because the actions of the federal government “are exempt from the proscriptions of § 1983,” District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 242-25 (1973), plaintiffs have failed to state a claim.

A private news organization is subject to § 1983 only if its conduct is plausibly connected to state action.

Campos v. K.U.S.I. News Media · filed 2019-09-24

Here, under the first element, the only named Defendant, K.U.S.I. News Media, is not a person alleged to have acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a private defendant acted with a state official; a conclusory allegation of joint action is insufficient.

O'Hara v. MortgageIT, Inc · filed 2019-09-24

Because a “merely conclusory allegation that a private entity acted in concert with a state actor does not suffice to state a § 1983 claim against the private entity,” Mr. O’Hara fails to state a claim for any constitutional violation or for § 1983 liability.

A public defender performing a lawyer’s traditional duties as criminal defense counsel does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

Lam v. Baliva · filed 2019-09-24

Plaintiff is unable to bring a claim against his public defender for “ineffective assistance of counsel” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). As a result, plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; private pension fund administrators and the fund’s attorney do not meet that requirement through their conduct as alleged here.

Aikens v. Cerrito · filed 2019-09-24

None of Defendants can be inferred to have been acting under color of state law with respect to Plaintiff’s claims in this action.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of law; a defense attorney is not a state actor unless jointly engaged with state actors in the alleged violation.

Wootten v. Beckstead · filed 2019-09-25

Nor can this Court plausibly infer from the Complaint that the attorney was jointly engaged with state actors who themselves were violating Wootten’s constitutional rights so that § 1983 liability would properly extend.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a claim against federal employees acting under federal law is treated as a Bivens claim.

Blevins v. Iwuagwu · filed 2019-09-26

Although Plaintiff used a court form complaint for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, she is a federal prisoner, (SAC1 at 1), and this action challenges the actions of federal employees at FCI-Dublin and not actions under color of state law.

Section 1983 covers public officials’ social media conduct when it is sufficiently connected to their official roles to constitute action under color of state law.

Garnier v. Poway Unified School District · filed 2019-09-26

Thus, MOR and Zane’s actions on their social media pages bore a sufficiently close nexus with the state.

Allegations that a supervisor used force to discipline a subordinate can satisfy § 1983’s color of state law requirement at the pleading stage.

Copeland v. Johnson · filed 2019-09-26

However, drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court concludes that Plaintiff sufficiently has alleged that Lt. Johnson was acting under color of state law.

An off-duty officer does not act under color of state law merely because a police-issued gun is involved in his private conduct.

SOTO v. CITY OF PATERSON · filed 2019-09-26

The fact that Benevento’s state-issued weapon was involved is unfortunate, but it does not alone create state action sufficient to support a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against appointed criminal defense attorneys for their traditional representation of a defendant because they do not act under color of state law.

Fierro v. State of New Mexico · filed 2019-09-26

Thus, he cannot sue them under Section 1983, because they did not act under color of state law to the extent that Fierro’s claims against the attorneys arise out of their representation of Fierro as defense counsel.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to act under color of state law; a private attorney does not meet that requirement merely because a court appointed him.

Stair v. Taylor · filed 1972-03-06

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy only against one acting under color of a state law. The defendant Mr. Taylor, a private attorney, “ * * * does not fall within this category, despite the fact that he had been appointed by the court. * * * ” Mulligan v. Schlachter, C.A. 6th (1968), 389 F.2d 231, 233 [3]. It thus appears that, even under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff has not stated a claim on which relief could be granted.

Section 1983 treats a police officer as acting under color of state law when he acts within his authority or abuses power he possesses by virtue of state law.

Augenti v. Cappellini · filed 1979-08-31

If he was acting within his authority as a police officer, he was acting under color of law. If his actions were an abuse of the power he possessed by virtue of state law, then under the Classic principle, he was acting “under color of state law” for purposes of a § 1983 action.

A retained defense attorney does not act under color of law and cannot be sued for damages under § 1983.

Jackson v. South Carolina · filed 1979-09-14

A retained attorney cannot be sued for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because thp attorney does not act under color of law within the meaning of the statute.

When the evidence is undisputed that a prison physician acted under color of state law, Section 1983’s color-of-law requirement presents no factual issue for the jury.

Hall v. Lieutenant John Ashley, Correctional Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Dept. Of Correction, and Dr. Car · filed 1979-10-18

Nor does any fact issue exist regarding whether Dr. Adams was at all times acting under color of state law.

A school district’s denial of a teacher’s grievance hearing can be action under color of law for a Section 1983 claim.

Adler v. Los Angeles Unified School District · filed 1979-10-31

We believe that one’s ability to pbtain employment within one’s profession is a property right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (see Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 572-574 [33 L.Ed.2d 548, 558-559, 92 S.Ct. 2701]) and that the district’s denial to plaintiff of a grievance hearing on his unsatisfactory rating was done under color of law.

Private persons may be liable under § 1983 if they willfully participate in joint action with state agents.

Mph TN Area Local v. Phillips · filed 2004-03-24

Private persons may be held liable under § 1983 if they willfully participate in joint action with state agents.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a private attorney or public defender for conduct while representing a criminal defendant because that work is not under color of state law.

Daniels v. Said · filed 2019-09-27

However, private attorneys and public defenders do not act under color of state or federal authority when they represent defendants in criminal proceedings.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law; appointed counsel does not become a state actor merely by representing a client.

Williamson v. Missouri Department of Corrections · filed 2019-09-27

Appointed counsel Blanton is not a state actor and his representation of plaintiff in Williamson I does not constitute state action, as required for a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a claim against privately retained counsel or a private law firm must plausibly allege joint action with the state.

Sun v. Banner · filed 2019-09-27

Because Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to show that either Defendant Banner or Defendant PCQB acted under color of state law, the Court dismisses the claims against them without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Private defendants can be liable under § 1983 only if they act under color of state law; conclusory allegations of joint action with officials do not establish that requirement.

Elena v. Municipality of San Juan · filed 2012-04-16

It follows that if the ... Paredes defendants did not act under color of state law then they cannot be liable under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a claim against federal actors must allege facts showing they used state-derived authority.

Heirs v. Zinke · filed 2019-09-30

Here, the Heirs have sued federal actors--the National Park Service, the United States Department of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Interior. The Heirs have alleged no facts tending to show that the United States acted under “authority derived from the state.” As such, the Heirs have failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant acting under color of state law; a federal agency acting solely under federal authority does not meet that requirement.

LAWRENCE v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION · filed 2019-09-30

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is deficient for failure to identify a state actor.

Section 1983 treats private medical providers contracted to care for county jail inmates as acting under color of state law.

Stojcevski v. Macomb, County of · filed 2019-09-30

The CCS Defendants, who were providing services to Macomb County Jail inmates under a contract with the county, are deemed to be acting under color of state law for purposes of § 1983, as well.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against criminal defense attorneys or their investigators for actions taken in defending a client because they are not state actors.

Flynn v. Papst · filed 2019-09-30

The attorneys who represented Mr, Flynn and their investigators are not state actors for purposes of Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; an off-duty or retired officer working for a private business does not meet that requirement without invoking official authority.

Llanes v. State of New York · filed 2019-09-30

Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that either Fanelli or Salzberg was acting under color of state law. He makes no mention of Fanelli or Salzberg invoking their status as retired or off-duty members of law enforcement, displaying official badges, or acting at the direction of the police.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a private attorney’s representation in a criminal case generally does not qualify absent concerted action with the state.

Collins v. New York City · filed 2019-09-30

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.” ... As Defendant Yvonne Nix 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.

A § 1983 claim requires an allegation that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Tiedemann v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints · filed 2015-11-25

Tiedemann did not allege in his complaint how the plaintiffs acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; state subsidies alone do not make a private housing operator a state actor.

WALDRON v. KOZACHYN · filed 2019-10-01

As such, Plaintiffs’ allegation that Barrington Mews receives state subsidies is insufficient to make Barrington Mews suable under Section 1983.

Section 1983 treats a public employee as acting under color of state law when the employee carries out the responsibilities of an official position.

Anthony Defalco and Eric Trantel v. MTA Bus Company, Brian Longaro, and · filed 2019-10-02

Because Bristow undertook all relevant action as a means of carrying out the responsibilities of his official position, we conclude that he acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires allegations showing that a private law firm or attorney acted under color of state law.

Ranzy v. Crumley Roberts, LLP · filed 2019-10-02

The conclusory, repetitious, and nonsensical allegations fail to adequately describe how each of the Defendants – a law firm and private attorney – was a state actor or violated Plaintiff’s rights under the color of state law.

A Section 1983 claim against a private person or company requires plausible allegations that the defendant acted under color of state law.

TAYLOR v. ZUCKERBERG · filed 2019-10-04

Plaintiff's Complaint provides no allegations that plausibly suggest that Defendants, a private corporation and individual, acted under color of state law to deny Plaintiff's constitutional rights. As a result, Plaintiff fails to state a Section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 permits claims against California Prison Industry Authority employees when they act under color of state law.

(PC) Lamarque v. Barcus · filed 2019-10-04

The PIA, sometimes known as “CALPIA,” is an entity within the CDCR that employs prisoners in agricultural and industrial positions. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12838(a), 12838.6 (West 2018); Cal. Penal Code §§ 2701, 2805 (West 2018). Pursuant to this authority, the defendants named in this action appear to have been acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this action.

Section 1983 does not treat an attorney as acting under color of state law solely because the attorney is an officer of the court; a private attorney may qualify by conspiring with a state actor to violate rights.

Akeyo v. Rehm · filed 2019-10-04

As an attorney, Rehm’s conduct, simply by virtue of being an officer of the court, generally does not constitute action under color of law as required for federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and there are no allegations from which it could be inferred that he conspired with a state actor to violate Plaintiff’s rights.

Section 1983 does not support wrongful arrest or malicious prosecution claims based on an officer’s conduct as a private citizen.

KAMATE v. City of Detroit · filed 2019-10-07

Rather, she alleges that Henry filed a wrongful police report and falsely testified at the preliminary examination as a private citizen in order to have plaintiff prosecuted for fraud. The court finds that plaintiff has not stated a cause of action against Henry for wrongful arrest or malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Section 1983 requires plausible facts connecting a private defendant to a state actor to state a claim against that defendant.

Hollowell v. Ally Bank · filed 2019-10-08

we conclude that Hollowell failed to allege facts that would entitle him to relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, or under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (plaintiff must provide short and plain statement of claim showing that he is entitled to relief); see also Magee v. Trs. of Hamline Univ., Minn., 747 F.3d 532, 536-37 (8th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff failed to state § 1983 claim against private party where no facts plausibly alleged mutual understanding between private party and state actor); Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 758 (8th Cir. 2004) (to state § 1985 claim, plaintiff must allege violation of federally protected right).

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a public defender performing traditional defense counsel functions because the defender is not acting under color of state law.

Trogstad v. Walker · filed 2019-10-08

Thus, under Plaintiff’s alleged facts, Defendant Mitchell was not acting under color of state law while representing him. Accordingly, Defendant Mitchell is not subject to suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 requires facts plausibly showing that the defendant acted under color of state law; a vague description of an entity as a state service is insufficient.

Jones v. Thompson · filed 2019-10-08

That is too vague of an allegation to plausibly support the conclusion that Defendant is a state actor. A state actor is a necessary element when attempting to raise a claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a claim against a federal employee acting under federal authority may be construed as a Bivens claim.

Santillan v. United States of America · filed 2019-10-08

However, the named defendant, Dr. Michelle Belgard, is a federal employee, and thus was not acting under the color of state law. ... Thus, I interpret the plaintiff's Section 1983 claim as a Bivens claim.

Section 1983 does not treat public employees as state actors when their alleged misconduct falls outside an actual or pretended official duty.

Combier v. Portelos · filed 2019-10-09

Applying these standards here, we conclude that the district court did not err when it determined that Portelos and Celli, though DOE employees, were not “state actors” for the purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against criminal defense attorneys, including appointed public defenders, for their representation because they do not act under color of state law.

Jordan v. Mackala · filed 2019-10-09

In the case of a criminal defense attorney, even an appointed public defender, the actions of the attorney are not fairly attributable to the State and the attorney is not acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law.

King v. Michel · filed 2019-10-09

But it applies only to persons acting under color of state law. ... Even when afforded the most liberal construction, none of Mr. King’s filings allege that the defendant is a state actor or that the defendant was acting under color of state law. Thus, Mr. King has not asserted a federal cause of action.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law.

Green v. Palm · filed 2019-10-10

A plaintiff cannot proceed with a federal claim under § 1983 against a non-stateactor.

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

SAILERS v. BRANAGAN · filed 2019-10-10

In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts suggesting that Defendants were state actors or acting “under color of state law.”

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

TAYLOR v. STEVENSON · filed 2019-10-10

Plaintiff's Complaint provides no allegations that plausibly suggest that Defendants, who are private individuals, acted under color of state law to deny Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Section 1983 requires allegations that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s civil rights while acting under color of state law.

Franklin v. Pride · filed 2019-10-10

Though he filed the complaint on the form used for commencing actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, there is no allegation that the action arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as required for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Franklin does not allege that Pride violated his civil rights or that he acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a private party’s use of garnishment procedures without significant assistance from state officials does not meet that requirement.

Yohannes v. Olympic Collection Inc (OCI) · filed 2019-10-11

Defendants did not act under color of state law. As previously discussed, they did not file false affidavits or otherwise deceive the Snohomish County District Court and cause the issuance of a fraudulent default judgment.

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

Graceful LLC v. Master Holdings Inc. · filed 2019-10-11

The basis for these claims is obscure, however, and the amended complaint cannot be construed to raise a colorable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Hariprasad did not allege that Appellees acted “under color of state law.”

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

Toahty v. Kimsey · filed 2019-10-11

To the extent that Plaintiff’s complaint can be construed to assert a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff fails to allege that any Defendant was acting under color of state law.

Private individuals who conspire with a state actor to deprive someone of federal rights may be liable under Section 1983.

FORLINA v. DOE · filed 2019-10-11

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the existence of a conspiracy involving state action and a deprivation of his civil rights by the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. The individual Casino Defendants’ request to dismiss the Section 1983 claims will be denied.

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

Vidurek v. Koskinen · filed 2019-10-15

Nor do we discern any error in the District Court’s dismissal of the § 1983 claim against Quinn. Such a claim requires that the “plaintiff . . . allege that he was ... injured by either a state actor or a private party acting under color of state law.” ... As the District Court held, the complaint does not plausibly allege that Quinn satisfied this requirement.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law; an off-duty officer’s personal conduct does not qualify without an exercise of police authority.

DIMITRI v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2019-10-15

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege facts in their Complaint demonstrating that Officers Soto and Forest were acting under color of state law at the time of the accident.

Section 1983 permits a prisoner to sue a private medical provider that contracts with the state to provide inmate care.

(PC) Spears v. Bianchi · filed 2019-10-16

Plaintiff will be allowed to pursue a claim against CFMG. The protections of the Eighth Amendment apply to a private medical provider when it contracts with the state to provide medical care to prisoners.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a private citizen is not liable without facts establishing state action.

Bogus v. Harris County District Attorney · filed 2019-10-17

Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the private citizen defendants were state actors acting under color of state law, and no viable section 1983 claim is raised against them.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a fellow inmate whose conduct is not alleged to be under color of state law.

Allen v. Love · filed 2019-10-17

Upon review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing Defendant Wells was a state actor or acting under color of state law when he attacked Plaintiff at the UCDC. Rather, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Wells was a fellow inmate. Thus, Defendant Wells is not subject to liability under Section 1983 and Plaintiff’s claims against him should be dismissed.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a claim against private actors fails when it does not allege state action.

Jackson v. Twin Rivers Hospital · filed 2019-10-17

Plaintiff has not alleged the doctors or hospitals were acting under color of state law.

A private person can act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes by conspiring or acting jointly with state officials to deprive someone of constitutional rights.

Alexander v. Tyler · filed 2019-10-18

For example, “[p]rivate action can become state action when private actors conspire or are jointly engaged with state actors to deprive a person of constitutional rights.” ... These allegations suggest more than simply “parallel conduct” by Taylor and the State Defendants but rather concerted action to achieve a common goal.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law; private parties are generally not liable under it.

Genao v. 307 LGF Mott Street LLC · filed 2019-10-18

The defendants are private parties, and Plaintiff has alleged no facts suggesting that they were acting under color of state law when they violated his federal constitutional rights.

Private medical providers do not act under color of state law for § 1983 merely by reporting suspected child neglect as required by law and providing medical care after the state takes custody.

Sawyer v. Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center · filed 2019-10-18

These new allegations do not change the Court’s prior conclusion that the Legacy Defendants did not engage in state action here. On the contrary, Plaintiffs’ allegations support the Court’s prior conclusion that the Legacy Defendants were acting as private providers of medical care with a mandatory statutory duty to report suspected medical neglect.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; private conduct alone cannot support a claim.

(PC) Harris, Jr. v. Randle · filed 2019-10-21

Almost all of the individuals or government institutions mentioned in the complaint do not appear to be acting under color of state law; instead, they seem to be private individuals who—for example—stole from plaintiff or provided him with legal defense. While the behavior of such individuals may run afoul of the law and may entitle plaintiff to some form of legal relief, it cannot, without more, serve as the basis for a § 1983 claim.

An attorney serving as trial counsel, whether retained or appointed, does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

Barnett v. Prince George's County Police Dept. · filed 2019-10-21

An attorney, whether retained, court-appointed, or a public defender, does not act under color of state law.

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

Williams v. Head Security team · filed 2019-10-21

The defendants here appear to be private parties not acting “under the color of state law.” Plaintiff Williams’s complaint therefore fails to state a claim under § 1983.

A proposed § 1983 claim against a private attorney is futile without plausible facts showing that the attorney conspired to deprive someone of civil rights under color of law.

Green v. Carlson · filed 2019-10-22

Green’s motion to amend also proposed replacing his conspiracy and deprivation of civil rights claims with similar claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. As to defendant Carlson, the proposed second amended complaint alleges no facts to plausibly allege Carlson conspired to deprive Green of his civil rights under color of law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendant’s conduct was attributable to the state.

Wiley v. Goodman · filed 2019-10-23

Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support he is an employee of the state or to support that actions taken by Mr. Goodman are attributable to the state. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Mr. Goodman under Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a private party to allege that the party acted under color of state law, including through a conspiracy with state actors.

Miles v. Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing Company · filed 2019-10-24

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 in a conspiracy with state or federal actors to deprive Plaintiff of his rights protected by the Constitution.

Section 1983 provides a damages remedy for constitutional violations committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Cordova v. Louisiana State University Health Science Center · filed 2019-10-24

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a damages remedy for a constitutional violation committed by a person acting under color of state law. ... The LSU defendants fail to show that they are not state actors or acting under color of state law for the purposes of this claim. Accordingly, there is no basis for dismissing the prayer for attorney fees against them.

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

Colston v. The Hershey Company USA · filed 2019-10-25

Neither defendant is a state actor or acting under color of state law and consequently cannot be held liable under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires allegations that the defendant acted under color of state law; testifying in municipal court alone does not establish that element.

Powell v. King · filed 2019-10-25

But Plaintiff did not provide any allegations to suggest that Defendant King was acting under color of state law when she testified in the Reno Municipal Court. (Id.) Having reviewed the R&R and the Complaint, the Court agrees with Judge Carry.

Section 1983 generally does not impose liability on a private party unless the complaint alleges facts showing that the party acted under color of state law.

Genao v. Guanilo · filed 2019-10-25

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

Ager v. Goodell · filed 2019-10-25

As Defendants Goodell and Seavey 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 imposes liability for constitutional violations committed under color of state law.

Mclemore v. Henry · filed 2019-10-28

Likewise, any attempt to rely upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is dead on arrival as that section “imposes liability for actions taken ‘under color of state law’ that violate the Constitution.” ... Here there is not even the hint that defendant was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; an unsupported allegation of collusion with county officials does not satisfy that requirement.

Miller v. Kutz · filed 2019-10-28

Because plaintiff has not shown that defendant Doe acted under color of state law, he has not stated a § 1983 claim against him.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of law; the allegations against a private employer and its principal did not meet that requirement.

Danam v. Kelley · filed 2019-10-28

Further, Plaintiff did not allege that Defendants acted under “color of law,” which is not plausible given that Defendants are a private employer and its principal.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a fellow inmate because inmates do not act under color of state law.

Kinford v. Moyal · filed 2019-10-28

Inmates do not act under color of state law. ... As such, Plaintiff cannot state a § 1983 claim against Defendant Lester Canada.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; private legal aid personnel who do not work for a government body do not satisfy that requirement.

Marquez v. Klein · filed 2019-10-28

As Defendants Klein, Condliffe, and Hambleton 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 permits a claim against a private party only when the alleged violation of federal rights is fairly attributable to the government.

Kocontes v. Orange County Sheriff s Department · filed 2019-10-29

Thus, the ultimate issue in determining whether a person is subject to suit under § 1983 is whether the alleged infringement of federal rights is “fairly attributable” to the government. ... Here, plaintiff does not set forth any factual allegations raising a reasonable inference that GTL (or any specific GTL official) took any action that caused a constitutional violation that was fairly attributable to the government.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law; public funding and government partnerships alone do not make a private university a state actor.

Saud v. DePaul University · filed 2019-10-29

Because the amended complaint fails to allege facts showing that either DePaul or the individual defendants acted under color of law, he has failed to plead a §1983 claim and Count I is dismissed with prejudice.

A private hospital nurse does not act under color of state law merely by treating a patient brought in by police while under arrest.

Peters v. Brown · filed 2019-10-30

Nurse Adams is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983 merely because Peters was under arrest when the Brookville police officers brought him to the hospital for evaluation prior to taking him to jail.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; private parties generally are not liable under it.

Debellis v. Massing · filed 2019-10-30

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.” ... As it appears that Defendant Joanne Massing 1s a private party who does not work for any state or other government body, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against Joanne Massing.

Section 1983 does not cover an attorney’s representation of a criminal defendant, whether the attorney is retained or appointed, because that work is not done under color of state law.

Torres v. Becton · filed 2019-10-31

Whether Martin is a public defender or a private attorney, however, plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal. See Szijarto v. Legeman, 466 F.2d 864, 864 (9th Cir. 1972) (holding attorney representing criminal defendant, “whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; private conduct alone does not satisfy that requirement.

RICKS v. PEOPLE READY STAFFING AGENCY · filed 2019-10-31

To the extent that Ms. Ricks intends to bring a claim for violation of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including her right to equal protection, she has not alleged facts satisfying the “under color of state law” requirement of that statute.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a public defender for performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as criminal counsel because the defender is not acting under color of state law.

Hudson v. Ting · filed 2019-11-01

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

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of law to state a federal claim based on due process or equal protection.

Sabree v. KIA Motors America, Inc · filed 2019-11-04

Plaintiff's reference to "due process" and "equal protection" on page 5 of the first amended complaint do not suffice to state a federal claim, because Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts whatsoever which demonstrate any defendant was acting under the color of law.

Section 1983 requires a private person’s challenged conduct to be fairly attributable to the State; payment by the State alone is insufficient.

Silverman v. Ivers · filed 2019-11-04

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to amend and add new defendants is DENIED as futile because Drs. McKenzie and Lyell are private individuals and their actions were not under color of state law such that Plaintiff cannot state a § 1983 claim against them.