42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not reach a private attorney’s conduct unless it is fairly attributable to the State.

Yarbrough v. Swift · filed 2019-11-04

Accordingly, although it is not clear from the complaint whether she intended to bring a Section 1983 claim against Cloos, even construing her complaint liberally, any such claim would fail as a matter of law and therefore is hereby dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law; a private party is not liable without such facts.

Coleman-Bey v. Childrens Aid Society · filed 2019-11-04

Defendants CAS and its employees, CAS Director Maria Burgos, CAS Supervisor Alexis Barber-Davis, and CAS case manager Kalumbi are private parties who do not work for any state or other government body, and Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to show that they were acting under color of state law in their interactions with him. Plaintiff thus fails to state a claim against these defendants under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plausible allegation that the defendants acted under color of state law.

HALL v. HORIZON HOUSE · filed 2019-11-04

Hall has not alleged facts to support a plausible conclusion that the named Defendants are state actors. ... Therefore, the named Defendants are not subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; a former attorney and law office that are not state actors cannot be sued under it.

Lee v. Gamino Law Office LLC · filed 2019-11-05

But Sevcik and Gamino Law Offices are not state actors amenable to suit in a § 1983 case.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law; receiving federal funds alone does not make a private entity a state actor.

Thomas v. Shaw · filed 2019-11-06

Mr. Thomas does not cognizably plead that Mr. Scarcello is a state actor (as opposed to a private individual), and he therefore cannot bring a Section 1983 claim against Mr. Scarcello.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; the federal government and its officials generally cannot be sued under it.

Gonzalez v. United States · filed 2019-11-06

Further, Plaintiff alleges no state-authorized acts by any Defendant. Accordingly, to the extent Gonzalez intended to assert any § 1983 claims, the Court dismisses such theories.

Section 1983 applies when a person acting under color of state law violates someone’s constitutional rights.

ANDREWS v. ORTIZ · filed 2019-11-06

Section 1983 is applicable when one’s constitutional rights were violated by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; filing a child support suit does not make a private party or her attorney a state actor.

Jones v. Jones · filed 2019-11-07

First, neither Defendant is a state actor; one is a plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking child support, and the other is her attorney.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a law firm representing a prison health care provider does not qualify on that basis.

Smith v. Connections CSP, Inc. · filed 2019-11-07

White and Williams is a law firm which represents Connections. This Defendant is not “clothed with the authority of state law.”

Section 1983 applies only to defendants acting under color of state law; an inmate who assaults another inmate without acting under color of state law cannot be held liable under it.

Bailey v. Menard Correctional Center · filed 2019-11-07

Section 1983 is only applicable to those acting under color of law, such as prison officials. ... There are no allegations in the Complaint to suggest Inmate Richard was acting under color of state law when he attacked Bailey. Therefore, Inmate Richard is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the person who violated a constitutional right acted under color of state law.

Sustaita v. Ford · filed 2019-11-08

Plaintiff does not assert, however, that Defendant Schierer was a state actor, at the times alleged. Reynolds v. Jamison, 488 F.3d 756, 764 (7th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff in Section 1983 action must show that the constitutional violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law). As a result, he does not plead an Eighth Amendment claim.

Section 1983 requires a constitutional deprivation caused by a person acting under color of state law; private conduct alone is insufficient.

Pettus v. Erole · filed 2019-11-08

However, Section 1983 imposes liability for constitutional deprivations caused by state actors and cannot be applied to the actions of private individuals or private organizations.

Section 1983 does not treat a private citizen’s participation in litigation as action under color of state law.

Toutges v. McKaig (PLR2) · filed 2019-11-08

Involvement in litigation does not mean that a party is acting under color of state law.

A private tax assessor acting as a town’s agent acts under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983.

Bennis v. Kleven · filed 2016-08-05

The parties agree that Bennis has satisfied the prerequisites to a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Kleven was acting as an agent of the Town of Garfield, and thus he was acting under color of state law when he conducted the assessment.

Section 1983’s requirement that a defendant act under color of state law is satisfied when a police officer acts in his official capacity.

Tepper v. City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement · filed 2017-06-02

Thus, acting “under color of state law” for purposes of Section 1983 has the same meaning as “in office or employment” under the Retirement Code here, where the jury found that Tepper acted “under color of state law” in his official capacity as a police officer.

Section 1983 applies only to individuals acting under color of state law and does not apply to a federal agent.

Briscoe v. United States · filed 2017-07-25

Despite invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Am. Compl. ¶ 172, — which applies only to individuals acting under the color of state law and would not apply to a federal agent — and repeatedly alleging violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, plaintiffs malte it clear that they "are not alleging constitutional torts or attempting to recover under a constitutional-based harm.” Pis.’ Opp. to United States Mot. at 12.

A private towing company is not liable under § 1983 when the complaint alleges no facts showing it acted under color of state law.

Basham v. Conkleton · filed 2019-11-12

Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support any plausible cause of action for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bubba Green Towing because Plaintiff has alleged no facts showing it was acting under color of state law. Instead, Plaintiff’s allegations show that Bubba Green Towing was acting in its capacity as a private citizen. Accordingly, the Court finds that Bubba Green Towing is not a state actor and Plaintiff’s claims against it should be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not reach private conduct without facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Wilson v. Doe · filed 2019-11-12

Second, the Eighth Amendment and § 1983 constrains only state conduct, not the acts of private persons or entities.

Section 1983 requires the defendant’s conduct to be under color of state law or fairly attributable to the state.

Martin v. Swearingen · filed 2019-11-13

Plaintiff does not allege that any of her federally-protected rights were violated, nor does she allege that Mr. Swearingen acted under color of state law or took any action that could be “fairly attributable to the State” as required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; it does not cover federal prison employees or a private medical provider contracting with the federal government.

Knox v. Chambers · filed 2019-11-13

Like Myrick, they are federal actors who may be sued under Bivens but not § 1983.

A county sheriff acting as sheriff acts under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983.

Christianson v. Markquart · filed 2018-07-19

The Court had original, federal-question jurisdiction over Christianson’s Section 1983 claim because Markquart was acting under the color of Minnesota law as sheriff of Martin County.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; confinement under federal authority does not establish that requirement.

Dixon v. Core Civic · filed 2019-11-15

His confinement in CoreCivic- Leavenworth was pursuant to the authority of a federal entity to confine him, presumably either the United States Marshal Service or the Bureau of Prisons, thus his allegations fail to establish that any defendant acted under color of state law for the purpose of establishing a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Black v. CSQT Inc · filed 2019-11-15

The malicious prosecution claim he raises is a state law claim and does not amount to a constitutional tort, he cannot sue under the Civil Rights Act because the sole named defendant is not acting under color of state law, he has not shown diversity jurisdiction, and he presents no basis for the Court to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; federal officials who did not use authority granted by state law do not meet that requirement.

Lovelien v. United States of America · filed 2019-11-18

To state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiffs “must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). ... Plaintiffs do not allege that the federal officials had or used any authority granted by Nevada law, nor would it be plausible to so allege here.

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

Krueger v. Stage · filed 2019-11-19

In addition, Plaintiff cannot seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Defendants are not state actors.

A town selectman acts under color of law for Section 1983 when she publicly debates and votes pursuant to her official duties.

R.I. Seekonk Holdings, LLC. v. Hines · filed 2019-11-21

As alleged, Hines acted under the color of law when, pursuant to her duties as a town selectman, she publicly debated and voted on issues.

Section 1983 does not reach a private person’s conduct unless the person performs a public function, acts under state compulsion, or acts jointly with the state.

Grant v. Brooklyn Veterans Hospital · filed 2019-11-21

However, nothing in the complaint suggests that any such circumstances exist in this case. Edmond Grant was not performing a public function, and there is no suggestion that he was compelled to act by, or was acting jointly with, any state entity.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against defendants whose conduct was not under color of state law.

Booth v. Virginian Pilot - Ledger Star, LLC · filed 2019-11-22

Booth’s allegations fail to plausibly suggest that Defendants acted under color of state law. Thus, Defendants are not state actors amenable to suit under § 1983.

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

Morris v. AHRCNYC · filed 2019-11-22

Here, Defendant is a private nonprofit organization, and Plaintiff does not allege any facts that would satisfy any of the tests described above. Thus, Defendant’s private conduct may not be fairly attributable to the state for the purpose of a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not treat a private physician as a state actor merely because she reports child neglect to police, has child abuse expertise, and formerly worked for the government.

Manda v. Albin · filed 2019-11-25

Nothing in Plaintiffs’ papers can lead this Court to believe a private physician, who reports neglect, is a state actor simply because they communicate with police, have expertise in child abuse, and formerly served as a state employee.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim against federal actors acting in their federal capacity.

Statewide Bonding, Inc v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2019-11-26

The problem with this count, as Defendants rightly note, is that here it is being asserted against federal actors. It therefore cannot proceed.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; private attorneys do not become state actors by representing parties who rely on state law.

Tangwall v. Buscher · filed 2019-11-26

While attorneys are officers of the courts and represent parties relying on provisions of state law, private attorneys are not state actors.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; an attorney representing a criminal defendant does not do so.

Diamond v. Mangum · filed 2019-11-26

A prerequisite for any relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a showing that the defendant has acted under the color of state law. An attorney representing a criminal defendant does not act under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not apply to claims against Social Security officials who are not state actors.

FELDER v. COLVIN · filed 2019-11-26

However, none of the Defendants are state actors, so § 1983 is inapplicable.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; private attorneys engaged in private practice are not state actors.

Uphues v. Law Offices of William R. Satterberg, Jr. · filed 2019-11-27

Defendants are all private attorneys engaged in the private practice of law, and therefore, not state actors.

Process servers act under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983.

Luciano v. Nassar · filed 2019-11-30

Process servers are state actors for purposes of section 1983.

Private process servers act under color of state law when serving process and may be sued under Section 1983.

Luciano v. Tinglin · filed 2019-11-30

Process servers are state actors for purposes of section 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a state employee who participates in a private dispute without exercising state authority.

Hoffman v. Office of the State Attorney, Fourth Judicial Circuit · filed 2019-12-02

Reviewing the allegations as a whole, we cannot conclude that they give rise to a plausible claim that Grissett acted under color of law. And because Grissett did not act under color of state law, he is not liable under § 1983.

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

Lira v. Horn · filed 2019-12-02

In his Complaint, Plaintiff names the Public Defender assigned to represent him in his criminal proceedings as a Defendant. However, 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.”

Section 1983 offers a remedy for constitutional violations by a state National Guard officer exercising state authority while the Guard has not been federalized.

Harnishfeger v. United States · filed 2019-12-03

That was action under color of state law, so § 1983 offers a remedy.

Section 1983 does not cover federal employees acting under federal law unless they act in concert with state officials under color of state law.

Peck v. Dorsey · filed 2019-12-03

Plaintiff does not show that Ms. Kirschner acted under color of state law; indeed, Ms. Kirschner acted pursuant to federal law in her representation of Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to show that Ms. Kirschner is a “person” for purposes of § 1983. Ms. Kirschner is a federal employee and Plaintiff introduced no evidence she acted in concert with the state or state employees.

Section 1983 does not cover conduct by retail employees who are not acting under color of state law.

Alexander v. Target Incorporated · filed 2019-12-04

The defendants were not state actors, rather they were employees at a retail store and plaintiff has not shown they were acting under color of state law.

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

Sanders v. Dubuque County · filed 2019-12-04

In this case it seems Moment is alleging, essentially, that his public defender provided ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not object to a speedy trial issue. That is a traditional attorney function. Accordingly, Moment’s state public defender, Scott Nelson, is immune and he is dismissed from this case.

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

Napermann v. Dubuque County · filed 2019-12-04

For purposes of § 1983, the Supreme Court has held that “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.” ... In this case it seems Moment is alleging, essentially, that his public defender provided ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not object to a speedy trial issue. That is a traditional attorney function. Accordingly, Moment’s state public defender, Scott Nelson, is immune and he is dismissed from this case.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to act under color of state law; a fellow inmate who assaults another inmate does not meet that requirement.

McNeill v. Snow · filed 2019-12-05

Plaintiff raises claims under § 1983 and has named inmate Snow as a defendant. ... Clearly, Snow is not “clothed with the authority of state law.”

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a private physician or hospital acted under color of state law; an unsupported claim that they were county agents is insufficient.

Harris v. County of San Diego · filed 2019-12-05

There is thus no basis to find that Wright and RCHSD acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not reach an inmate’s assault on another inmate when the attacker is not a state actor.

Mays v. Doe · filed 2019-12-05

Brown is an inmate, and not a state actor. As such, Plaintiff cannot reach his conduct in this lawsuit.

Urging police to make an arrest does not, by itself, make a person act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

Partain v. City of South Padre Island, et a · filed 2019-12-06

We also agree that, in urging the police to make an arrest, he did not act under color of state law.

Section 1983 permits claims against private parties that conspire or act jointly with state actors to violate constitutional rights.

Jones v. Motel 6 · filed 2019-12-09

A private actor may be liable under 42 US.C. § 1983 if the individual commits constitutional violations as part of a conspiracy or joint action with a state actor.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a defense attorney performing counsel’s traditional role because the attorney is not acting under color of state law.

Lippert v. McFarland · filed 2019-12-09

As the case law clearly specifies, Plaintiff may not maintain a federal civil rights claim against a public defender or defense attorney, because—even though they may have been funded by the state—they are not considered as having acted on behalf of the state. Hence, McFarland is not a state actor.

Private companies that contract to provide medical care in state prisons act under color of state law for Section 1983 claims.

WALTERS v. CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES INC. · filed 2019-12-09

Because Corizon and Wexford acted under color of state law by contracting to perform a government function—providing medical care to state correctional facilities—they are treated as government entities for purposes of Section 1983 claims.

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

Reed v. Hyatt · filed 2019-12-09

Plaintiff fails to allege that Dr. Nieves, who appears to be a private citizen, acted under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a private defendant had the legal status to violate a constitutional right.

EDWARDS v. THE HILLMAN GROUP, COMPANY · filed 2019-12-09

Plaintiff fails to plead any facts against The Hillman Group, an apparently private entity, that would support his claim that it violated his Eighth Amendment rights or as a private party had the legal status to do so.

Section 1983 does not reach a private employer’s termination of private employment without action under color of state law.

Sripirom v. Rivers Casino and Resort · filed 2019-12-10

Here, Defendant is a private entity alleged to have terminated Plaintiff's private employment, which is a claim "manifestly devoid of merit" under Section 1983's under color of state law requirement.

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

McConville v. Corrections Corporation of America · filed 2019-12-11

The Court found in the MOSC that: Plaintiff provides no factual claim or support for a claim that CCA acted under color of state law; ... Plaintiff’s remedy against CCA and its employees, if any, is an action in state court for negligence or other misconduct. ... Because Plaintiff has failed to show good cause why this action should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC, and has failed to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies, this Court finds that this matter must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law; inmates who are not state actors cannot be sued for their conduct under the section.

Wing v. Myers · filed 2019-12-11

In order to bring an action under § 1983, “the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law,” and “must have deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... Freeman and Frazier are inmates, and not state actors. As such, Plaintiff cannot reach their conduct in this lawsuit.

Section 1983 does not cover an officer’s private conduct when the officer is not acting under color of state law.

Smith v. Kennemore · filed 2019-12-12

In sum, the Court finds the facts of this case, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, cannot support a finding that Defendant was acting under color of law when he seized Plaintiff’s stick, entered her home, or when he called the HCSD and alleged that Plaintiff had assaulted him with the stick. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s claims asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not cover an off-duty officer’s personal conduct when the officer does not invoke police authority or act under color of state law.

Vasquez v. Garcia · filed 2019-12-16

Accordingly, because Mr. Garcia was not acting under the color of law when he sent these text messages to Ms. Vasquez, Ms. Vasquez’s section 1983 claims against him will be dismissed.

A private defendant can face § 1983 liability for conspiracy with a state official only if they reached an understanding to deprive someone of constitutional rights and the defendant willfully participated in joint activity.

Spiezer v. Dickler, Kahn, Slowikowski and Zavell, Ltd · filed 2019-12-16

Plaintiff has failed to identify any state official with whom Defendants reached an understanding, what that understanding may have been, or that Defendants were willful participants in any such conspiracy. Therefore, the Court dismisses Count I against all Defendants.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; claims against private citizens who are not state actors cannot proceed.

WILSON v. JOHN DOE GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - DELAWARE COUNTY PRISON · filed 2019-12-16

Section 1983 requires that an individual acting under color of state law engaged in the conduct allegedly violative of the Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The allegations in the Complaint are clear that John Doe at Insurance Co., John Doe and/or Jane Doe at the Taylor Hospital Medical Department, and Qawi Wilson are private citizens, not state actors.

Section 1983 does not make a private party liable as a state actor merely for giving police information about a suspect, even if the information is deliberately false.

Ortolaza v. Capitol Region Education Council · filed 2019-12-18

The same rule obtains in the case at bar: Even if Plaintiff adequately pleaded that the CREC Defendants deliberately gave police a falsified account of E.’s experiences or background, that conduct would not give rise to a civil rights claim under § 1983 against those Defendants.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against post-conviction counsel for representing a criminal defendant when counsel is not acting as a state agent.

Hurt v. Kuehnert · filed 2019-12-18

Mr. Delk was not acting as a state agent when he served as post-conviction counsel for Plaintiff in his North Carolina criminal proceedings, and therefore, the claims against him must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not make a private party a state actor merely because it files a claim in state court.

DAVISTON v. WIKE · filed 2019-12-18

Merely filing a claim in a state court does not, however, make a private party a “state actor” for purposes of § 1983.

A criminal defense attorney performing traditional defense work is not acting under color of state law and cannot be sued under § 1983 for that work.

Winters v. Bascom · filed 2019-12-19

Plaintiff cannot maintain an action against his attorney, Richard Bascom or his law firm, because a criminal defense attorney is not suable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A private party may be liable under § 1983 by conspiring with a state actor to violate constitutional rights or through an interdependent relationship with the state.

Ballock v. Costlow · filed 2019-12-20

A private party may be liable under § 1983 when the party participates with a state actor in a conspiracy to violate another’s constitutional rights, Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 930-31, or where there exists an interdependence or “symbiosis” between the private and the state actors. Jackson v. Pantazes, 810 F.2d 426, 430 (4th Cir. 1987). ... After careful review of the evidence of record, the Court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the elements of a conspiracy claim involving Costlow and Kief. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever that the state profited from Costlow’s actions. Accordingly, Costlow is entitled to summary judgment as to Counts One, Two, Six, and Seven.

Section 1983 treats a union as acting under color of state law when it works with the state to deduct dues from employees’ wages under a state procedure.

Hernandez v. California · filed 2019-12-20

Under this test, the court finds that the union defendants were state actors. The state established a law that compelled the state to garnish wages in response to the unions’ requests. The statute does not require any particular action from unions. In requesting the state to continue extracting dues, the union defendants therefore were “willful participant[s] in joint action with the state.”

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a private criminal defense attorney who is not acting under color of state law.

Torres v. Becton · filed 2019-12-20

At the outset, and as explained in the Court’s October 31 order, plaintiff’s claims, to the extent brought against Martin, are subject to dismissal, as Martin is a private attorney, not a state actor.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; state regulation alone does not make private conduct state action.

Seymore v. Department of Revenue CSE · filed 2019-12-20

With the dismissal of the Department of Revenue, no state actors remain, as there are no alleged facts sufficient to show that Arika Richard or Holy Cross Hospital acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 applies to persons acting under color of state law, so it does not provide a claim against federal employees acting as federal officials.

McRoy v. Lashbrook · filed 2019-12-20

As to John/Jane Does 21-30, United States Postal Service mail handlers, Plaintiff cannot proceed on a claim against federal employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of his constitutional rights because that statute applies only to persons acting under color of state law.

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

Horton v. Kolb · filed 2019-12-20

But civil rights claims under § 1983 may not be asserted against private citizens because they do not act “under color of law,” meaning on behalf of the government.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a private attorney for ordinary representation without nonconclusory allegations of conspiracy with a state actor.

DAY v. STATE OF MAINE · filed 2019-12-20

In short, Mr. Day’s claim against Attorney Hatch is premised on a decision by Attorney Hatch that fell squarely within a lawyer’s traditional functions, and without any non-conclusory allegations of conspiracy between Attorney Hatch and Justice Gorman, Attorney Hatch is not a state actor subject to § 1983 liability.

Section 1983 does not reach a private hospital or its physicians when the complaint alleges no facts making their conduct state action.

Febres v. Yale New Haven Hospital · filed 2019-12-23

The complaint therefore fails to state a plausible Section 1983 claim against the hospital. The same conclusion holds for Drs. Haghighat and Harrison, who are both alleged to be employees of the hospital and are, accordingly, private actors not subject to Section 1983 liability.

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

Murray v. Beck · filed 2019-12-23

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

An officer acts under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when exercising authority granted by the state during an arrest.

Johnson v. Officer Musa Hammett · filed 2019-12-23

Hammett was “exercising power possessed by virtue of state law” as an officer employed by the MDTA when he stopped plaintiff for speeding and subsequently arrested him pursuant to the New Mexico warrant.

Section 1983 requires a public employee’s alleged misconduct to involve the use or misuse of state authority; acts taken as a private landlord do not satisfy the color-of-law element.

Martinez v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2019-12-23

For the reasons above, Martinez complaint does not establish the color-of-law element necessary to allege a cognizable constitutional claim under Section 1983.

A private medical worker contracted by a corrections department may act under color of law and be sued under Section 1983.

Freer v. Walker · filed 2019-12-27

Accordingly, the Court inferred that Walker was contracted by the DOC and thereby acting under color of law.

A § 1983 claim against a hospital must allege facts showing that the hospital acted under color of state law.

RIVES v. WILSON · filed 2019-12-27

Here, the amended complaint contains no facts alleging that Eskenazi Hospital was acting under the color of state law when it allegedly deprived Mr. Rives of his rights.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law; a private bank’s conduct must be attributable to the state.

MERRIWEATHER 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.

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

JOHNSON 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.

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

Kochan v. Kowalski · filed 2019-12-27

He has not alleged that they invoked their respective offices when they made the complaints or that they otherwise abused the power of the state.

Section 1983 claims against private prison service providers may proceed when the allegations plausibly show that they acted under color of state law.

DREW v. WALTON · filed 2019-12-27

The Court notes that the Supreme Court has held that people who work in a state or municipal prison, or perform required services for their prisoners, under private contact generally act under color of state law. ... After a close review of the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds that the allegations are enough to create plausible claims against these Defendants and, as such, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be denied.

Defense attorneys do not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when representing people in criminal proceedings.

Hammersley v. Wagner · filed 2019-12-30

It should also be noted that public defenders and other attorneys who defend individuals in criminal proceedings do not in doing so act under state law for purposes of determining liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Off-duty officers do not act under color of state law for § 1983 when they pursue a personal dispute without using their police authority.

Gomez v. New Orleans City · filed 2019-12-30

The Court concludes, then, that, even viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Gomez, Galman and Sutton were not acting under color of law at the time of the incident.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a private party’s conduct must qualify as state action.

Thomas v. Taco Bell Corporate Office · filed 2019-12-30

Even assuming the truth of Plaintiff’s claims, there are no allegations in the Complaint that Defendants exercised any powers which are traditionally exclusively reserved to the State. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim upon which relief may be granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Section 1983’s color-of-state-law requirement is sufficiently pleaded when an on-duty deputy’s alleged conduct is related to the performance of his official duties.

Lucas v. County of Fresno · filed 2019-12-31

For these reasons, the court concludes that plaintiffs have alleged facts that, if proven true, would show that defendant Deputy Mullis’ actions were taken under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; it does not cover the alleged conduct of federal employees or private federal prison employees acting without state authority.

Montgomery v. Ferentino · filed 2019-12-31

A § 1983 claim cannot be asserted against the federal employees or CCA employees because they are not acting under color of state law.

An obligation to follow state law does not, by itself, make a person a state actor or mean that the person acts under color of state law for § 1983.

Jordan v. Williams · filed 2020-01-02

Here, the fact that Defendants were required to follow state law does not make them state actors or make them act under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a defense attorney performing counsel’s traditional functions does not qualify.

Darries v. Cornelius · filed 2020-01-03

This case is dismissed on two grounds. First, under § 1983, Mr. Cornelius is not a state actor.

Section 1983 claims against private parties require alleged joint activity with public officials.

Anderson v. West Memphis City of · filed 2020-01-03

Likewise, his § 1983 claims against Southland and Boston fail for lack of alleged joint activity between them and any public officials.

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

JONES v. TAYLOR · filed 2020-01-03

First, Mr. Jones has failed to state a claim under § 1983 against Ms. Taylor. According to the complaint, Ms. Taylor acted as a private citizen, not under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not cover defense attorneys performing traditional functions as counsel because they do not act under color of law.

Jorge Gabriel Espinoza Vallecillo v. People of the State of Michigan · filed 2020-01-07

First, defense attorneys, whether appointed or retained, do not act under color of law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.

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

Williams v. Fay Servicing, LLC · filed 2020-01-07

Because Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that Defendants are state actors, Plaintiff does not state a plausible section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 permits a claim against an officer who uses his police authority to gain access to a person’s home and assault her.

K.J.C. v. The City of Montgomery · filed 2020-01-08

Here, Williams secured access to K.J.C.’s home only because he was called there on police business, and he used his authority as a police officer to rape her. K.J.C. has stated a claim under federal law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; defense attorneys performing traditional functions as counsel to a criminal defendant do not meet that requirement.

Howard v. Effenbeck · filed 2020-01-08

The Court also found in the MOSC that Plaintiff’s claims against his defense attorneys are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff has not shown that they were acting under color of state law as required under § 1983. ... IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this matter is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; a suit against federal prison officials instead falls under Bivens.

Davis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 2020-01-09

The district court stated that the action was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; however, it falls under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), because Mr. Davis sued federal prison officials, not persons acting “under color of state law” as required by § 1983.

Police officers are state actors for purposes of Section 1983.

MIDDLEBROOKS v. CLAVIJO · filed 2020-01-09

Plaintiff asserts claims against five Passaic police officers. Accordingly, Defendants are all state actors for purposes of Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; suing a private party without alleging such action does not state a claim.

Agusto v. MGM Resorts · filed 2020-01-09

Having reviewed the R&R (ECF No. 8), IFP application (ECF No. 1), and Complaint (ECF No. 1-1), the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin and adopts the R&R in full. ... Furthermore, Judge Baldwin found that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief under § 1983 because he is only suing a private party, MGM Resorts, and does not assert that Defendant acted under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a government employee’s private misconduct does not meet that requirement merely because of the employee’s position.

WALKER v. DIXON · filed 2020-01-13

In summary, the Complaint does not contain factual allegations to support an inference that Dixon acted under color of state law when he engaged in any of the conduct Plaintiffs rely upon in support of their § 1983 claims. Thus, the Complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim against Dixon.

A Section 1983 claim against a private defendant requires facts plausibly showing that the challenged conduct was connected to state action.

Campos v. K.U.S.I. News Media · filed 2020-01-14

Plaintiff does not allege facts plausibly showing that K.U.S.I. News Media performed any public function traditionally reserved to the state, acted as a willful participant in joint action with government agents, was compelled or coerced by, or had any connection whatsoever with, the state when it allegedly failed to “tileize” Plaintiff’s face in a video recording of his sentencing hearing.

Section 1983 requires conduct attributable to the state; a fellow inmate who acts without state authority or assistance is not subject to suit under it.

Cantrell v. Branham · filed 2020-01-15

Accordingly, I conclude that Branham’s conduct is, in no way, chargeable to the state so as to make him a state actor subject to being sued under § 1983.

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

Woodie Williams, Jr. v. Chung Ho Chang · filed 2020-01-15

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s claim against defendants Atfel and Wicks because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these defendants acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a private person may be liable when acting jointly with the state or its agents.

Freeney v. Galvin · filed 2020-01-15

Here, Plaintiff’s purported section 1983 claim against the manager of his private place of employment is not cognizable because Plaintiff’s manager is not a ... 2 ... state actor, nor has Plaintiff alleged that his manager was engaged in joint action with the state or its agents such that his manager’s actions can be characterized as actions of the state.

Section 1983 applies only to deprivations of constitutional rights committed under color of state law.

Medina v. United States of America · filed 2020-01-17

First, because Plaintiff is a federal inmate suing federal employees, 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 does not permit a claim against a defense attorney performing a lawyer’s traditional functions because the attorney is not acting under color of state law.

Elm v. Zoellner · filed 2020-01-21

But Attorney Zoellner is not a state actor amenable to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires state action; a private university does not become a state actor by investigating and disciplining a student under its conduct code.

Doe v. Washington University · filed 2020-01-21

Plaintiff’s allegation and argument miss the mark, however, because defendant investigated and sanctioned plaintiff for violation of the student code of conduct, not for any criminal offense. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that defendant’s investigation precluded or interfered with any criminal investigation in any manner.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on private landlords without facts showing they acted under color of state law.

KENWORTHY v. LYNDHURST POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2020-01-21

Even accepting his allegations as true, Plaintiff does not plead any facts demonstrating that the Landlord Defendants, who are all private individuals, acted under the color of state law when they allegedly violated Plaintiff’s (or Mrs. Kenworthy’s) constitutional rights.

A property manager does not act under color of state law merely by giving information to a police officer.

Johnson v. McQuistion · filed 2020-01-21

A property manager merely reporting information to a police officer does not thereby become a state actor exposing herself to suit under § 1983.

A private citizen who only provides information to police and answers an officer’s questions does not act under color of law and cannot be sued under § 1983.

Weser v. Goodson · filed 2020-01-21

Because Defendant Goodson’s actions were not taken “under color of law,” she cannot be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits suit against a private contractor that provides medical services to prisoners on behalf of a county.

Strader v. Cumberland County · filed 2020-01-21

QCHC is a proper Defendant under Section 1983 because it contracts with Cumberland County to provide medical services, a function traditionally reserved to the state.

A private individual may be sued under § 1983 when the complaint sufficiently alleges joint action or conspiracy with the state.

Smith v. Souvenir · filed 2020-01-22

The Court finds these alleged facts, given a liberal reading because plaintiff is a pro se litigant, to be sufficient for screening purposes, against Darren Carlson for joint action or conspiracy with the state in this § 1983 action.

Section 1983 does not reach private conduct unless the defendant acted under color of state law.

Guy v. The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut · filed 2020-01-22

Because Defendants are “private entit[ies], and there are absolutely no allegations that would establish a conspiracy with state officials or any other allegations establishing state action,” Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim is dismissed.

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

Bearden v. Gray · filed 2020-01-23

The facts alleged by Bearden, however, do not suggest that Gray acted under color of state law. He therefore has no claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law; allegations against a private bank without facts showing government action do not satisfy that requirement.

Riter v. Wacker · filed 2020-01-24

Here, Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts to show government action.

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

Calvino v. Mainchance · filed 2020-01-27

Because Defendant is a private entity not alleged to have been acting under color of state law, Plaintiff has not stated a claim under § 1983 against the Defendant.

Section 1983 provides a remedy against persons acting under color of state law, not federal officials acting under federal law.

Luna v. Thomas · filed 2020-01-28

However, because the ... individual defendants named in the Complaint are all federal officials and not state officials, plaintiff cannot allege a claim against any individual defendant under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law.

Everage v. Welch · filed 2020-01-28

42 U.S.C. § 1983 applies only where a defendant acts under the color of state law.

Section 1983 does not cover claims against public defenders or private defense attorneys acting as defense counsel because they do not act under color of state law.

Foster v. Cardland · filed 2020-01-28

Public defenders and private defense attorneys do not act under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a basis for finding that private defendants acted under color of state law.

Davis v. Carter · filed 2020-01-29

Plaintiff provides no basis for finding that Plaintiff’s ex-wife and her attorneys were acting under “color of state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Private contractors performing government functions act under color of state law and are treated as government entities for § 1983 claims.

GREEN v. WEXFORD MEDICAL · filed 2020-01-29

Because Wexford and GEO Group act under color of state law by contracting to perform a government function, they are treated as a government entity for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; being a bonding company or bondsperson does not alone make a defendant a state actor.

Brown v. A Second Chance Bail Bonds · filed 2020-01-29

Defendants’ status as a bonding company and a bondsperson does not cause them to be state actors. ... IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Section 1983 does not apply to claims against private individuals who are not state actors.

Hunt v. Yoshimura · filed 2020-01-30

As for the civil rights statutes, Sections 1983, 1985, and 1988, the former is not applicable here because the defendants in this action are private individuals, not state actors.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law; a claim against private airline defendants needs facts supporting an inference that they acted as state actors.

Berlin v. Jetblue Airways Corporation · filed 2020-01-30

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts from which the Court could infer that Defendants are state actors under any of these tests, and Blythe v. Southwest Airlines Co.mpany, 383 F. App’x 766 (10th Cir. 2010), cited by Plaintiff, (Pl. Renewed Mot. 2 n.1), supports the conclusion that Defendants are not state actors.

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

Pare v. Valet Park of America · filed 2020-01-30

Additionally, there are no allegations in the Complaint that the Goddard School is a state actor or was acting under color of state law, as required under Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a federal right caused by someone acting under color of state law; conduct by private actors alone does not qualify.

Clay v. Freebird Publishers · filed 2020-01-31

The actions of private actors such as the named defendants do not constitute state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law; a claim fails when the defendants are not state actors.

Noe v. Ray Realty · filed 2020-01-31

Moreover, although Plaintiff asserts a Section 1983 claim in her Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Section 1983 because Defendants are not state actors and she has not asserted that they “acted under color of state law,” as the Report rightly recognized.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law and be personally involved in the alleged violation.

McNeill v. Johnson · filed 2020-02-03

Plaintiff has failed to refute Yang’s evidence that she was not a law enforcement officer, had no duty to intervene, did not act under the color of state law, and had no personal involvement in the excessive force incident.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law; private legal service providers did not meet that requirement here.

Puente v. Soderstrom · filed 2020-02-03

Defendants here did not act under color of state law. Soderstrom, as a private individual running a business in California, albeit an apparently fraudulent one, did not act under color of state law in his dealings with Plaintiff.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a private person to allege that the person acted as a state actor or that her conduct was attributable to the state.

Titus v. Cobb · filed 2020-02-03

Plaintiff cannot pursue relief against Mauseth in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he fails to allege that Mauseth is a state actor or that her conduct is attributable to the state.

A public university professor acts under color of state law for § 1983 when he uses his position to violate a student’s bodily integrity.

Huang v. Ohio State University · filed 2020-02-03

By alleging that Dr. Rizzoni used his position as a tenured professor at OSU to violate her right to bodily integrity, Ms. Huang has pled sufficient facts to support a plausible § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 reaches private conduct only when the conduct is fairly attributable to the state.

Hernandez v. Gonzalez · filed 2020-02-04

Private action may be deemed state action, for purposes of section 1983, only where the challenged conduct “may be fairly attributable to the State.”

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

Gold v. Hasty · filed 2020-02-04

Moreover, Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to show McCarley, a criminal defense attorney acted under the color of state law, which is a prerequisite to a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983’s under-color-of-law requirement is met when city officials suspend a registration pursuant to city rules.

Raja v. Burns · filed 2020-02-05

Since OATH claimed it suspended the plaintiffs registration pursuant to City rules, there is no doubt that the defendants acted “under color of law.”

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of law; it does not reach merely private conduct.

Pauler v. Western State Hospital · filed 2020-02-05

It is apparent that these individuals––who are unknown and not employees of the hospital––were not acting under color of law, as is required to maintain an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Defense attorneys do not act under color of state law for § 1983 liability when representing a criminal defendant.

Saiz v. Sandoval · filed 2020-02-05

The remaining Defendants, Aragon and Silva, are not subject to liability because defense attorneys do not act under color of state law as defined by § 1983.

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

(PS) Hayes v. Southwest Airlines · filed 2020-02-06

Instead, it appears that plaintiff’s complaint concerns conduct by employees of a private entity, not individuals acting under color of state law.

Private parties can be sued under § 1983 for conspiring with a judge, but a plaintiff must allege concrete facts supporting the conspiracy.

Spiezer v. Dickler, Kahn, Slowikowski and Zavell, Ltd · filed 2020-02-06

It must allege facts upon which a reasonable juror could infer that DKSV and the Association were conspiring with a judge to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law or taken action fairly attributable to the State.

Martin v. Benett · filed 2020-02-06

Plaintiff does not allege that any of her federally-protected rights were violated, nor does she allege that defendant acted under color of state law or took any action that could be “fairly attributable to the State” as required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law; a private law firm and its attorney are not liable without a basis for treating them as state actors.

MISSOURI v. FITZGERALD · filed 2020-02-06

Mr. Missouri has not alleged facts to support a plausible conclusion that either of the named Defendants meet any of the foregoing tests; 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.

A § 1983 complaint must allege that the defendants acted under color of state law; working as a confidential informant alone does not establish that requirement.

Canady v. Wolf · filed 2020-02-07

Although Plaintiff alleges that Amber Wolf was working as a CI, otherwise known as a confidential informant, that does not mean she was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a private emergency physician whose relationship with the state and prisoner is too attenuated to make the physician's treatment state action.

HARLOW v. WORLEY · filed 2020-02-07

Based on its consideration of the factors outlined above, the Court concludes that the relationship among the State, Dr. Worley, and Mr. Harlow was too attenuated to conclude that Dr. Worley acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires facts supporting a reasonable inference that a private defendant acted under color of state law; vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient.

Davis v. Core Civic, Inc. · filed 2020-02-07

After careful review, the Court finds Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to allow the court to reasonably infer Defendant Moore acted under color of state law.

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

Rynn v. McKay · filed 2020-02-10

The district court properly dismissed Rynn’s claims against defendant Frontera Arizona Empact-SPC because Rynn failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must . . . show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§12-2603, 13-3620.

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

Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems Incorporated · filed 2020-02-10

To the contrary, it appears from the face of the complaint that MPS is a private company and Sciammas is a private citizen. The § 1983 claim therefore is subject to dismissal.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against public defenders or private defense attorneys because they are not state actors.

Johnson v. Gibson · filed 2020-02-10

Public defenders and private defense attorneys are not state actors against whom claims can be asserted under § 1983.

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

Williams v. Mayhew · filed 2020-02-13

Therefore, Williams has not adequately alleged that Maggio was acting under color of state law for the purposes of § 1983. On this basis, Maggio is entitled to dismissal of the suit as to him.

Section 1983 does not make a private animal shelter a state actor merely because it agrees to receive animals seized by city officers.

MADERO v. LUFFEY · filed 2020-02-13

Just because the HAR Defendants had an agreement with the City to accept cats seized by its ACC officers, does not mean the HAR Defendants were acting under the color of state law after HAR received the cats.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against defense counsel for performing traditional functions of representation, even when counsel is court-appointed.

Barlow v. Billy · filed 2020-02-14

Plaintiff may not sue his attorney for deficient performance under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because, even when court-appointed, counsel do not act under color of law while performing traditional functions of counsel in representing defendants in criminal proceedings.

A public defender does not act under color of state law when representing a defendant in criminal proceedings.

Parker v. Jackson · filed 2020-02-14

Defendant Allen was not acting under color of state law while representing Plaintiff in his criminal proceedings.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; an attorney providing private legal services does not meet that requirement.

Lindsey v. Exum · filed 2020-02-14

Defendant here did not act under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law; a private dialysis provider and its employees are not liable without facts supporting state action.

LEE v. SMITH · filed 2020-02-14

The Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to support an inference that these Defendants — which include a private medical facility specializing in dialysis treatment and its private employees — are state actors subject to liability under § 1983.