42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Perkins v. Unknown · filed 2020-02-18

Because the attorney’s alleged professional deficiencies occurred while he was acting as Perkins’ defense counsel, those actions were not taken under color of state law as required to provide a legal basis for suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of federal rights by a state actor or a private party acting under color of state law.

Beck v. Babel · filed 2020-02-18

Beck did not—and presumably cannot—allege that his rights under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute were violated by ... defendants, or, perhaps more glaringly, that defendants (a private citizen and private insurance companies) are state actors or acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 can reach a public official’s administration of a social media page when that conduct is sufficiently connected to the official’s state office to occur under color of state law.

Fasion v. Jones · filed 2020-02-21

In sum, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their § 1983 claims because they have demonstrated (1) they have Article III standing, (2) Defendant acted under color of state law, (3) the interactive portion of Defendant’s Facebook page is a public forum, and (4) Defendant engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against the FBI or its agents because they do not act under color of state law.

Emrit v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2020-02-21

First, as to Emrit’s constitutional claims, Emrit has no cause of action against the FBI (or its agents) under Section 1983 because federal agencies and their officials do not act “under color of” state law.

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

Wiley v. Vea · filed 2020-02-21

To the extent Plaintiff may be attempting to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of federal law, such claim fails for failure to allege that any remaining Defendant is a state actor.

Section 1983 does not cover attorneys performing traditional functions of counsel because they do not act under color of state law in that role.

Rodriguez v. Seidler · filed 2020-02-21

The law is well established that attorneys, whether privately-retained or court-appointed, do not act under color of state law when they perform traditional functions of counsel.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against IRS agents who act under federal law when collecting federal taxes.

McKenzie-El v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 2020-02-24

Accordingly, when the IRS collects taxes on behalf of the United States, it acts under federal, not state law, and so IRS agents are not subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Marglon v. City of Sioux Falls Police Department · filed 2020-02-24

Because Marglon does not assert that either Jensen or Slattery acted “under color of law,” he has failed to state a § 1983 claim against them.

A state-prison employee who shoots an inmate with a block gun may be inferred to act under color of state law for § 1983 pleading purposes.

(PC) Byrd v. Unknown · filed 2020-02-25

The defendant is a state-prison employee who, accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, can be inferred to have acted under color of state law when he shot defendant in the head with a block gun.

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

LIVINGSTONE v. HADDON POINT MANAGER, LLC · filed 2020-02-25

Because Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that any Defendant is a state actor, all of his various Section 1983 claims fail.

Criminal defense attorneys acting in the normal course of a criminal defense are not acting under color of state law and cannot be sued under § 1983 for that conduct.

Smith v. McGowan · filed 2020-02-26

Criminal defense attorneys do not act under the color of state law in the normal course of conducting a defense in a criminal prosecution, and therefore, they are not amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; representing a criminal defendant does not meet that requirement, even when the attorney is a public defender.

Reynolds v. Adams · filed 2020-02-27

Moreover, the Supreme Court has been clear that the representation of a criminal defendant is not an act taken under color of state law, even where the attorney is a public defender.

Section 1983 generally does not treat private attorneys as acting under color of state law when they represent a public body.

Wilson v. Mount Diablo Unified School District/Special Education Local Plan Area · filed 2020-02-27

Here, Combs, Estes, Huntoon, F3, and AALRR argue that, as private attorneys and law firms, they did not act under color of state law when communicating the alleged threats. The Court agrees. Ordinarily, for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, private attorneys, “whether retained or appointed, [do] not act ‘under color of’ state law.”

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

Wills v. Pierce County · filed 2020-02-28

Regarding the first two claims, Wills has failed to establish that Stanfill was acting under color of law to support a claim under § 1983 or that he was a government actor to support an ADA claim.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law, either as a state actor or through joint action with state officials.

Lynch v. Holder · filed 2020-02-28

Because the plaintiff has not sued a state actor, the court must dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Section 1983 does not cover a public employee’s conduct that is unrelated to official duties, even if the employee is on call.

DiDonato v. Panatera · filed 2020-02-28

As DiDonato has failed to show that Panatera acted under color of state law, her Section 1983 claim fails on this ground.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing a private towing company to allege that it acted under color of state law.

Grayson-Bey v. Hutchinson · filed 2020-03-04

J and M/Dalton Currier Towing Company is a private company, not a state actor, and Plaintiff makes no allegation that it was acting under the color of state law when it towed his car. The claims against J and M/Dalton Currier Towing Company are therefore not appropriately raised under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to act under color of state law; serving as a government consultant alone does not establish that requirement.

Uko v. Smith · filed 2020-03-04

The fact that a private actor was a consultant of the government is insufficient to establish that the private party acted under “color of state law.”

Section 1983 does not cover federal officers acting under color of federal law rather than state law.

Willis v. GosgRove · filed 2020-03-05

Here, Plaintiff brings suit against federal BOP officers acting under color of federal law, rather than state law. As such, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims.

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

Green v. Cleveland · filed 2020-03-09

The fatal defect of the plaintiff's complaint is its failure to allege that any of the named defendants acted “under color of” State or District of Columbia law.

A Section 1983 claim against private security employees may be dismissed when the plaintiff concedes they were not acting under color of state law.

Calderon v. Village of Bridgeview, Illinois · filed 2020-03-09

The Defendants argue that Ortiz and Nesis were not acting under color of state law at the time of Calderon’s arrest and that the federal false-arrest claims against them thus should be dismissed. ... Calderon concedes this argument because he did not address it in his response brief. ... Accordingly, Calderon’s federal false-arrest claims as to Ortiz and Nevis are dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against private defendants who did not act under color of state law are subject to dismissal.

Scott v. Crosby Energy Services · filed 2020-03-09

Plaintiff concedes in his response memoranda to all three motions to dismiss that defendants are private citizens that did not act under color of state law or conspire with state actors during the events giving rise to this lawsuit. ... Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED insofar as plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against all defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

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

Almazon v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association · filed 2020-03-09

More importantly, Almazon “fails to allege facts to establish that [Chase’s] relevant conduct may be fairly attributable to the state as required to sustain a § 1983 claim.”

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

Evans v. Rea · filed 2020-03-10

The district court properly dismissed Evans’s claims against his public defender because he was not acting under color of state law in his representation of Evans.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against an attorney merely for representing a party in a case because that conduct is not under color of state law.

Landon v. Vallandingham · filed 2020-03-10

It is firmly established that an attorney representing a party in a case does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a private citizen who is not a state actor cannot be sued under it.

O'Boyle v. Carrasco · filed 2020-03-11

One of the requirements for liability under §1983 is that a defendant be acting under color of state law. ... Moran was a private citizen, not a government official. Moran is not a state actor and he cannot be sued under §1983.

Section 1983 requires an allegation that a person acting under color of state law violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Ss & T, LLC. v. American University · filed 2020-03-11

SS & T’s complaint also cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for jurisdiction, see Compl. ¶ 5, but the complaint lists only one count—the § 1981 claim—and never alleges that SS & T’s rights were violated “by a person acting under color of state law,” as is necessary to state a claim for relief under § 1983, West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Section 1983 does not cover an off-duty police officer driving his personal vehicle to work because that conduct is not under color of state law.

James v. City of Greenville · filed 2020-03-12

While it is true that Wigfall was on his way to work at the time of his accident, plaintiffs offer no authority suggesting that the act of driving his personal vehicle to work is sufficient to render his actions “under color of state law” within the meaning of § 1983. This court therefore agrees with plaintiffs that § 1983 is inapplicable to the claims against Wigfall, and that is the only vehicle under which they might assert federal claims against him.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a private person only when the person acts jointly with the state or its agents.

Mason v. Clover · filed 2020-03-13

42 U.S.C. §1983 allows a citizen who has been deprived of his rights under the federal Constitution or federal law to sue the person who deprived him of those rights, if the person was acting “under color of” state law. ... At this point, the plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to be able to state a claim against Traxler—a private citizen—relating to Bouzek’s alleged retaliation.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on off-duty officers who neither act nor purport to act in the performance of their official duties.

Hyun Park v. City and County of Honolulu · filed 2020-03-13

Because Naki and Omoso did not act or purport to act in the performance of their official duties, they were not acting under color of state law.

A private company operating a prison acts under color of state law for Section 1983.

Norris v. Core Civic · filed 2020-03-13

Because it “performs the traditional state function of operating a prison,” CoreCivic “acts under the color of state law for purposes of [Section] 1983.”

Section 1983 does not support a civil rights claim against a fellow inmate who was not acting under color of state law.

(PC) Nguyen v. Givens · filed 2020-03-16

Under the Civil Rights Act, plaintiff cannot state a cognizable civil rights claim against inmate Clifton because he was not acting under color of state law.

A private party’s alleged misuse of judicial procedures does not make that party a state actor under § 1983.

Rodman v. Jean-Charles · filed 2020-03-16

The alleged misuse of judicial procedures will not qualify Defendants as state actors under § 1983.

A state legislator does not act under color of state law for Section 1983 merely by seeking payment on behalf of a private business.

BUNTING v. NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER · filed 2020-03-16

Although Greenwald is a State Assemblyman, the Amended Complaint does not indicate that he took any actions to harm Plaintiffs in his official capacity. Rather, the Amended Complaint only concerns actions he took as a principal of Carlisle, namely calling Plaintiffs to demand payment for Carlisle’s services. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that these actions were carried out under the color of state law, and therefore they cannot serve as the basis for a Section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; defense counsel performing traditional lawyer functions does not meet that requirement.

Senters v. Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Lane County · filed 2020-03-16

Further, to the extent that Senters’ claim relates to counsel’s conduct as it relates to Senters’ release on bail, he fails to state a § 1983 claim because his allegations pertain to defense counsel’s performance of traditional functions of a lawyer during a criminal proceeding and therefore do not support a reasonable inference that he acted under color of state law (a necessary element of a § 1983 action).

Section 1983 requires sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that a private attorney acted under color of state law; vague and conclusory allegations do not suffice.

Davis v. Core Civic, Inc. · filed 2020-03-17

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 the defendant to have acted under color of state law; state employment alone does not make conduct outside the employee’s state authority actionable.

Palmer v. Robbins · filed 2020-03-18

As a result, pursuant to the allegations in the Amended Complaint, Winston was not acting under color of law.

An attorney’s status as an officer of the court, standing alone, does not establish action under color of state law for a Section 1983 claim.

Krueger v. Josh Kaul · filed 2020-03-19

Krueger also contends that he stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the attorney because he is an “officer of the court,” but—even assuming Krueger alleged a violation of a constitutional right—this is insufficient, standing alone, to suggest any action taken “under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law when the alleged deprivation occurred.

Pototsky v. Nogales, City of · filed 2020-03-19

As noted above, liability under § 1983 depends on Defendant Barth being a state actor, i.e., a JP for Santa Cruz County, acting under the color of law.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a private citizen who was not acting under color of state law.

Carlson v. Town of Mountain Village, Colorado · filed 2020-03-19

Plaintiff added the § 1983 claim in the Second Amended Complaint, but, as the Court explained in its order dismissing the case, “offer[ed] no explanation of how Carlson could be liable under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983, as he is a private citizen not acting under color of state law.” ... The Court finds that there is “no rational argument on the law or on the facts” that could be made in support of plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Carlson.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law when the alleged deprivation occurred.

Pototsky v. Nogales, City of · filed 2020-03-20

As noted above, liability under § 1983 depends on Defendant Barth being a state actor, i.e., a JP for Santa Cruz County, acting under the color of law. The Complaint needs to allege facts which support the assertion that Defendant Barth was a state-actor as of the time of the assault.

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

(PS) Lewis v. Wellspace Health · filed 2020-03-20

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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. ... Plaintiff does not allege that any of the defendants are state actors, nor does he identify the specific individual(s) who allegedly violated his constitutional rights.

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

Feller v. Feller · filed 2020-03-20

Constitutional claims brought under § 1983 may be asserted only against individuals who act “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Feller makes no allegation, and there is no basis to conclude, that Ms. Feller is a state official or was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires each defendant to have acted under color of state law; private parties are generally not liable under it.

Young v. Trump · filed 2020-03-20

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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Private parties are therefore not generally liable under the statute.

Section 1983 does not treat a private hospital and its physicians as state actors merely because regulations permit them to enter a collaborative practice agreement.

Gorenc v. Klaassen · filed 2020-03-23

As previously explained, Adventist and the Laborists were not acting under color of state law when they declined to enter into a CPA merely because applicable regulations permitted CPAs by joint agreement.

Section 1983 requires an alleged constitutional violation under color of state law, by a government actor or a private individual acting as an agent of the state.

Afshari v. Montana Black Gold · filed 2020-03-23

The statute, “by its terms, requires that any alleged constitutional violation be taken under color of state law, either by government actors or private individuals acting as agents of the state.” ... Afshari does not allege that any defendant is a government actor or acting as an agent of the state. ... Thus, the §1983 claim must be dismissed.

Section 1983 does not require defendants to act within the scope of their authority to act under color of state law.

LaVelle v. City of Las Vegas, Nevada · filed 2020-03-23

Plaintiff need not show that defendants were within the scope of their authority to prove they acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for alleged constitutional violations by defendants acting under color of state law.

Ollie v. Williams · filed 2020-03-23

As Plaintiff is a federal prisoner suing federal prison officials and employees, he has no viable claim under § 1983. The statute only provides a cause of action for alleged constitutional violations by defendants who act under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against private individuals absent facts showing that they acted under color of state law.

MATHIS v. MCGARRITY · filed 2020-03-23

Accordingly, because the named Defendants are not subject to suit under § 1983, Mathis cannot state a plausible constitutional claim against them.

Section 1983’s state action requirement is adequately pleaded when defendants are alleged to have acted as police officers employed by a city police department.

Richter v. Ausmus · filed 2020-03-24

Because Richter has alleged that defendants were acting as police officers employed by OPD, she has adequately pleaded the second prong of her Section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a private landlord’s eviction does not establish state action.

Stroud v. Farr Rentals, LLC · filed 2020-03-24

Here, none of plaintiff’s factual allegations can support a claim that a state actor deprived her of a federally-protected right. Farr Rentals and the Farrs are alleged to be private landlords, not state actors.

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

Christophel v. IATSE Union · filed 2020-03-25

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a right secured by the Constitution has been violated and the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. ... However, the Complaint does not include sufficient allegations to find that the named Defendants were acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; defense attorneys who are not state actors cannot be sued under it for ineffective assistance.

Duke v. Wallace · filed 2020-03-26

Duke’s attorneys, Godinich and Schindler, are not state actors. But section 1983’s reach is limited solely to actions performed under color of law.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a private person who acts in concert with state officials to deprive someone of constitutional rights.

Haughey v. County of Putnam · filed 2020-03-29

Here, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Porto “acted in concert” with state actors to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.

Private parties are not state actors under § 1983 when they are not fully vested with state authority.

Kosielowsky v. Sammies Friends · filed 2020-03-30

Kosielowsky now asks us to find that Sammie’s Friends, a private corporation, and Wicks, a corporate employee, were acting under the color of state law. We do not. Kosielowsky neither alleges nor can it be inferred that Sammie’s Friends and Wicks were “fully vested with state authority.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 57 (1988).

Section 1983 permits claims against private parties who act in concert with state actors to deprive someone of constitutional rights.

Vivar v. New York City Police Department · filed 2020-03-30

These facts and the logical inferences from these facts, plausibly allege that Sears and Diaz were acting in concert with HRA and the NYPD, two municipal agencies, and “shared a common unlawful goal” of harassing Plaintiff to pressure him into ceasing his complaints about Self Help and HRA.

Section 1983 does not treat a private provider’s day-to-day foster care as state action merely because the provider cares for children placed by the state.

Howell v. Father Maloney's Boys' Haven, Inc. · filed 2020-01-03

As such, there appears to be near uniformity among courts that the day-to-day provision of foster care is not a public function for purposes of characterizing the provider-of-care as a state actor subject to Section 1983 liability.

A Section 1983 claim fails when the plaintiff does not sue a person acting under color of state law.

Moore v. Garner · filed 2020-01-27

As stated above, Plaintiff does not object to the dismissal of her Section 1983 claim based on failure to sue a person acting under color of law.

Alleged misconduct by private process servers, including in foreclosure actions, constitutes state action for purposes of § 1983.

Makhnevich v. MTGLQ Investors, L.P. · filed 2020-02-14

Following Wiseman, courts in this circuit have consistently concluded that alleged misconduct by process servers, including in foreclosure actions, constitutes state action for purposes of § 1983 as well.

Section 1983 treats employees of contractors providing services to state prisoners as acting under color of state law.

The Estate of Claude Stevens v. Stewart · filed 2020-03-31

Defendants working for Corizon or CharDonnay—entities providing services to MDOC inmates under a contract with the State—are deemed to be acting under color of state law for purposes of § 1983, as well.

Section 1983 permits a claim against tribal officials only when they act under color of state law, rather than tribal law.

Scott v. Paisley · filed 2020-03-31

Accordingly, the Court agrees with Judge Johnston’s determination that Scott fails to state a claim under either § 1983 or Bivens against the Tribal Defendants regarding his arrests, prosecutions, incarcerations, and treatment in tribal courts and tribal jails.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the challenged conduct was taken under color of state law.

Redd v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2020-03-31

In order to succeed on her § 1983 claims, Plaintiff must, as a threshold matter, establish that the challenged conduct of Defendants was taken under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the alleged wrongdoers acted under color of state law; an off-duty officer’s private bar fight does not satisfy that requirement.

Gomez v. New Orleans City · filed 2020-04-01

The factual allegations in the amended complaint do not support a claim that Galman and Sutton were acting under the color of law, but rather as private citizens in a bar fight.

A state officer remains subject to § 1983 when the pleaded facts do not show that federal officials directed the challenged detention.

Canales v. Caw · filed 2020-04-03

Accordingly, the “facts currently before the Court preclude a finding that [Defendants were] acting under color of federal law” during the events of August 7, 2019.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; tribal officers removing a tribal member from a tribal meeting at the tribal chairman’s direction act under tribal authority.

Genskow v. Prevost · filed 2020-04-06

The general rule, however, is that tribal police officers do not act under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983. ... In physically removing Genskow from the meeting, the defendants were acting at the express direction of the Tribal Chairman. In other words, they were acting under color of tribal authority.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; a claim against a federal agent fails without an allegation that the agent did so.

Barnard v. The United States Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) · filed 2020-04-06

Here, there is no indication that the federal agent was acting under color of state law. Therefore, the complaint based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fails to state a claim.

An officer who exploits his police status to commit sexual assault can act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

Doe v. City of Chicago · filed 2020-04-06

Construing plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and all reasonable inferences in her favor, she has sufficiently alleged that Whitley was acting under the color of state law when he solicited sex from her and sexually assaulted her.

Section 1983 permits claims against private actors who act jointly with state actors to violate federal rights.

S.H. v. Hendrixson · filed 2020-04-06

Nothing in the allegations indicates that private citizen defendants Steven Ray and Jack Hendrixson are state actors for purposes of liability under § 1983.

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

SPINKS v. COHEN · filed 2020-04-06

Similarly, Spinks’s § 1983 claims against Secretary Azar fail because Spinks has not alleged that Secretary Azar has taken any action under color of state law, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; appointment as guardian of an estate and court approval to sell its property do not alone make the guardian a state actor.

Thomas v. Craige · filed 2020-04-07

In sum, plaintiff fails to state a claim for a federal constitutional claim under § 1983, where defendant is not a state actor.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law; a private attorney who is not a state actor has a defense to the claim.

Kamila v. Cornell University · filed 2020-04-07

Further, to succeed on a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must establish that the named defendant was acting under color of state law. ... Defendant Fenchel, as an attorney in private practice, has demonstrated that he likely has a meritorious defense to the claims raised, since he is neither Plaintiff's employer, nor a state actor.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a private inmate for an alleged assault without action under color of state law.

Hampton v. Bulholtz · filed 2020-04-08

There are no allegations in the Complaint (ECF No. 1) that Defendant’s actions could properly be characterized as state action. Therefore, Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff under § 1983, even assuming that he assaulted Plaintiff as alleged.

Section 1983 treats a sheriff’s deputy’s unauthorized access to investigative records as action under color of state law when his official position enabled that access.

Doe v. County of San Diego · filed 2020-04-09

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Wilson was acting under color of state law when he accessed her information for the purpose of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a federal agency because it does not act under color of state law.

Jumping Eagle v. Yantis · filed 2020-04-09

As a federal agency, the USMS also does not act under color of state law for purposes of a § 1983 suit.

Section 1983 does not apply to federal officials acting under color of federal law.

Sanchez-Mercedes v. Bureau of Prisons · filed 2020-04-10

This statute “does not apply to federal officials acting under color of federal law.” Id. at 1104.

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

Dixon v. Foreman · filed 2020-04-10

He provided no factual claim or support for a claim that Defendants acted under color of state law, therefore failing to state a claim for relief under § 1983, and he has no right of action for damages under Bivens against Defendants, who are employees of a private prison, for alleged constitutional deprivations because alternative state causes of action for damages are available to him.

Section 1983 requires the defendant to act under color of state law; private conduct by actors with no state authority does not satisfy that requirement.

Kali v. Bulk Handling System · filed 2020-04-10

Because defendants are private actors and hold no power or authority under state or federal law, plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law; holding public office alone does not make private conduct state action.

Carter v. Davis · filed 2020-04-13

Nor are there specific allegations in the complaint showing state action by Stamm.

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

Helfrich v. City of Pataskala · filed 2020-04-13

This includes Defendants Kaiser and Johnson, since there is no allegation they were acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against an appointed post-conviction attorney performing counsel’s traditional functions because the attorney is not acting under color of state law.

Willis v. Bruno · filed 2020-04-14

Plaintiffs appointed post-conviction attorney is, therefore, not a state actor subject to suit under Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires the alleged deprivation to have been committed under color of state law; a defense attorney does not meet that requirement by representing a client.

Crawford v. Burke County District Attorney's Office · filed 2020-04-15

Defendant Clontz did not act under color of state law.

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

Odimegwu v. McMaster · filed 2020-04-16

To the extent Odimegwu attempts to bring suit on the theory that the defendants have violated her constitutional rights, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show not only that "some person deprived him of a federal right," but also that "such person 'acted under color of state or territorial law.'" Grapentine v. Pawtucket Credit Union, 755 F.3d 29, 31 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980)). Here, the defendant McMaster is not alleged to be a state actor.

An off-duty officer who does not act or purport to act in an official capacity is not liable under § 1983 because he does not act under color of law.

Welborn v. Snohomish County · filed 2020-04-17

The Court finds that Mr. Toner did not act under color of law and is not subject to § 1983 liability.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a jail chaplain whose decisions on detainees’ religious accommodations plausibly show that he acted under color of state law, even if the county did not directly employ him.

Al Saud 108844 v. Lamb · filed 2020-04-17

Taken as true, these allegations show that Defendant acted under color of state law by providing chaplaincy services to Pinal County detainees and by responding to and deciding detainees’ requests for religious accommodations. This would be the case even if Defendant is not directly employed by Pinal County.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a claim against a federal defendant is more appropriately considered under Bivens.

POOLE v. LANGSTAFF · filed 2020-04-17

Plaintiff James Hunter Poole, a prisoner in the Lowndes County Jail in Valdosta, Georgia, has filed a handwritten document, which has been docketed in this Court as a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. Compl., ECF No. 1. Because Plaintiff is seeking relief against a federal defendant, his complaint is more appropriately considered under Bivens v. Six Unnamed Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Section 1983 requires a claim based on acts taken under color of state law.

Wilson v. Lewicky · filed 2020-04-20

However, Plaintiff did not seek relief for acts taken by persons acting under color of state law and did not, therefore state a claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; an attorney representing a criminal defendant does not meet that requirement.

Wilkins v. Edmonson · filed 2020-04-20

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 requires action under color of state law; an attorney acting as counsel does not meet that requirement, whether retained, court-appointed, or a public defender.

Aiken v. Adolf · filed 2020-04-20

An attorney, whether retained, court-appointed, or a public defender, does not act under color of state or federal law, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for any civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or under the Bivens doctrine.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against criminal defense attorneys performing their duties as counsel because they do not act under color of state law.

Cheney v. Dean · filed 2020-04-21

Criminal defense attorneys and public defenders do not act under color of state law.

Section 1983’s color-of-state-law requirement is satisfied when the defendants do not dispute that they acted under color of state law.

Dass v. The City University of New York · filed 2020-04-21

Accordingly, Plaintiff has satisfied the “under color of state law” element of her Section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law; allegations that a private physician examined a jail detainee at his practice did not establish that he or his employer was a state actor.

Harmon v. Black · filed 2020-04-22

Here, the Complaint does not allege any facts from which the Court can liberally construe that either Dr. Black or his employer are state actors.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for an officer’s private conduct unrelated to any actual or purported police authority, even when the officer is on duty.

Wahlers v. Hendren · filed 2020-04-22

For these reasons, the Court finds that Wahlers has not plausibly alleged Hendren acted under color of state law when he shot and killed Alix. Accordingly, Wahlers’s § 1983 claims against Hendren for excessive force (Count VIII) and violation of bodily integrity (Count IX) fail as a matter of law.

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

Harrison v. Capital One Services, LLC · filed 2020-04-23

Harrison does not allege any facts showing that Capital One violated his constitutional rights under color of state law.

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

Williams v. Sontchi · filed 2020-04-24

When bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). There are no allegations that either Defendant is a state actor.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendants acted under color of state law; receiving state grants alone does not make a private organization a state actor.

Schmaltz v. McKissic · filed 2020-04-27

Finally, plaintiff’s brief mention of the Saint Patrick Center receiving state grants does not make it into a state agency, because there is no indication that the state directed the Saint Patrick Center’s actions or were involved in its decisions.

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

Swift v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-04-27

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants, acting under “color of state law,” deprived him of a right secured by the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law, which employees of private entities generally do not perform.

Fletcher v. Summit Food · filed 2020-04-29

Employees of private entities generally do not act under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a criminal defense attorney performing the role of defense counsel because the attorney does not act under color of state law.

Ambeau v. Liegeois · filed 2020-04-30

Attorney Mongin, as the plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney, cannot be sued under §1983 because he did not act under the color of state law; he was the adversary of the State.

Section 1983 generally does not cover tribal officers and agents acting under tribal law because they do not act under color of state law.

Holtz v. Oneida Airport Hotel Corporation · filed 2020-04-30

The general rule, however, is that tribal officers and agents do not act under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983.

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

(PS)Wallace v. Buckingham Property Management · filed 2020-04-30

The allegations found in the complaint, however, fail to allege how Buckingham Property ... Management acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not treat a private hospital doctor as a state actor merely because the doctor treats a prisoner.

Brodigan v. Swink · filed 2020-04-30

Put simply, treating a prisoner does not convert a healthcare provider into a state actor.

Section 1983 provides a federal remedy for civil rights violations by people acting under color of state law; claims against federal actors fall outside it.

Clark v. True · filed 2020-05-01

Clark also brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which offers a federal remedy for civil rights violations by persons acting under color of state law. Because this matter involves claims against federal actors and not state actors, it was appropriately brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens.

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

Smith v. Pollino · filed 2020-05-01

Therefore, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege facts sufficient to support the requirement that Defendants acted “under color of law” under Section 1983 and will dismiss Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against the individual Defendants as individuals.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law and does not impose liability on private law firms or fellow inmates for the conduct alleged here.

Grant-Cobham v. Martinez · filed 2020-05-01

In addition, because § 1983 only creates liability for persons acting under color of state law, plaintiff cannot sue private law firms for not representing him or his fellow inmates for slander and nuisance under that statute.

An officer working private security acts under color of law for § 1983 purposes when he intends to exercise official police authority; disputed evidence of that intent leaves the issue for a jury.

Yatsko v. Graziolli · filed 2020-05-01

Thus, whether Graziolli was acting under the color of law during his third encounter with Yatsko is a jury question.

Section 1983 provides no remedy against a private healthcare facility that did not act under color of state law.

MELEIKA v. JERSEY CITY MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2020-05-04

Whatever the merits of Meleika’s remaining tort claims are, § 1983 does not provide him a remedy against this private healthcare facility.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives someone of a federal right; an official’s private conduct does not qualify.

House of Providence v. Meyers · filed 2020-05-05

In the present case, plaintiffs do not allege that Roesner-Meyers violated any of their federal rights while acting in her capacity as a township official. Some of the actions attributed to her were, as the amended complaint makes clear, taken in her capacity as a private citizen, and not by virtue of any authority she possessed as a member of the OTPC or the ZBA.

A private citizen does not act under color of state law merely by obtaining a state court restraining order.

Fredin v. Street · filed 2020-05-05

The fact that she successfully obtained the HRO issued by the Ramsey County District Court does not demonstrate the type of conduct necessary to otherwise confer § 1983 liability on a private citizen.

Section 1983 requires an alleged state actor; without one, a plaintiff has no cause of action under the section.

Moore v. Right Now Plumbing · filed 2020-05-05

Additionally, none of the named defendants is alleged, or appears, to be a state actor and, thus, there can be no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not support a claim against an inmate when the complaint does not plausibly allege that he acted under color of state law.

McFarland v. Fuller · filed 2020-05-05

First, nothing in the complaint allows the Court to plausibly infer that Defendant Inmate Bean was acting under color of state law at any relevant time. Thus, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983 as to him and he will be DISMISSED.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a private party alleged to have bribed state adjudicators, because the alleged conspiracy can constitute action under color of state law.

Carver v. Houchens Food Group, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06

Because Carver has alleged that the denial of his unemployment benefits by the referee and KUIC panel was due to Houchens’ bribery of these individuals, Houchens’ argument that it cannot be said to have been acting under color of state law is rejected.

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

De'Bey v. The City of New York · filed 2020-05-06

There are no allegations in the Amended Complaint suggesting that Gaston acted under color of state law. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not stated a Section 1983 claim against Gaston.

Section 1983 requires a plausible allegation that the defendant acted under color of state law; a public official’s conduct unrelated to the authority of the office does not satisfy that requirement.

Falzon v. Ford · filed 2020-05-06

Furthermore, Brian Ford’s alleged actions bear no relationship to his office or authority. Plaintiffs do not plausibly suggest Brian Ford acted under color of law when he parked a manure spreader and dump wagon near the Falzons’ property.

Court appointment as a guardian does not, by itself, make a private individual a state actor under § 1983.

BUSH v. CHOTKOWSKI · filed 2020-05-06

Even if each of them has been appointed by the state court to serve in a guardian capacity, they are still not considered to be state actors for § 1983 purposes.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law; private citizens may satisfy that requirement by acting in concert with state officials.

Gridiron v. Golden · filed 2020-05-07

There is therefore no basis for this Court to conclude that Tamika Golden or Freddie May Golden acted under color of state law. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint fails to state a viable § 1983 claim against Tamika Golden or Freddie May Golden, or against any other defendant who cannot be considered a state actor.

Section 1983 requires a claim against a defendant acting under the authority of state law.

Anderson v. Easter · filed 2020-05-08

A claim under § 1983 can only be made against persons acting under the authority of state law. ... Plaintiff does not allege that Dr. Yang acted as a state officer or agent.

Section 1983’s state action requirement is not met when a public employer deducts union dues under a member’s agreement with the union.

Molina v. Pennsylvania Social Service Union, Service Employees International · filed 2020-05-08

The court finds the Eastern District’s reasoning in Oliver persuasive and concludes that the deduction of union dues from Molina’s paycheck does not amount to state action sufficient to support a § 1983 claim.

Public defenders do not act under color of state law when performing defense work for a client, so that work cannot support a § 1983 claim against them.

Robertson v. Solomon · filed 2020-05-11

The allegations that Robertson’s public defenders are providing ineffective assistance in the criminal case against him by failing to marshal available evidence and failing to tell the truth to the judge at Marsden hearings fail to state a claim under § 1983 because the public defenders were not acting under color of state law in doing so.

A private party’s use of state postjudgment procedures to enforce a judgment does not, by itself, constitute action under color of state law under § 1983.

Horowitz v. Sherman · filed 2020-05-11

The Selzer Defendants’ use of Maryland post-judgment procedures to enforce their judgment against Cathy and Robert Horowitz does not constitute action under color of state law as to Elizabeth Horowitz and Count I will be dismissed.

A private physician treating a state prisoner can be a state actor for purposes of Section 1983.

Bridges v. The State of New York Correctional Services · filed 2020-05-12

While providing treatment to Plaintiff, an inmate at Green Haven, Dr. Janis acting as a state actor.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; conclusory allegations do not establish that private citizens did so.

Cline v. State of Utah · filed 2020-05-13

Plaintiffs cite to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Both of these statutes require that the defendant be acting under color of state law. Plaintiffs make conclusory allegations that Defendants McPhie and Packer were acting under color of state law. However, the allegations in the Amended Complaint make clear that they are private citizens.

Section 1983 applies to persons acting under color of state law, not to federal officers acting in their federal roles.

POHLE v. ROBERTS, JR. · filed 2020-05-13

As such, § 1983 does not apply to actions of federal agencies or officers such as Chief Justice Roberts.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against appointed or retained defense attorneys performing traditional defense functions because they are not acting under color of state law.

Johnson v. Levi · filed 2020-05-14

It is well-settled that appointed and retained attorneys performing traditional functions as defense counsel do not act “under color of state law” and are not state actors subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not cover a claim against a private business absent facts showing it acted under color of state law.

Harmon v. Toyota · filed 2020-05-15

Further, Venice Toyota is a private business and is not considered a person acting under color of state law for § 1983.

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

Mackey v. United States · filed 2020-05-18

Further, section 1983 provides no claim against federal officers acting under color of federal law.

Section 1983 liability requires conduct under color of state law.

Harding v. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of New York Inc · filed 2020-05-18

Judge Erwin correctly notes that because the Complaint does not allege that any of the Defendants were acting under color of state law, there is no § 1983 liability.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a private party that does not act under color of state law.

Belssner v. Circle Dental · filed 2020-05-21

Further, Plaintiff cannot sue Circle Dental under § 1983 because it is a private party, not a state actor, and does not act under color of law.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against defendants who were not acting under color of state law.

Paul v. Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen · filed 2020-05-21

As defendants were not acting under color of state law, they are not subject to suit under Section 1983.

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

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-26

Axelrod cannot be sued under section 1983 because attorneys do not act under color of state law when they perform traditional functions of counsel.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on private actors who are not acting under color of state law.

McShane v. Moldenhauer · filed 2020-05-27

Because Nurse Bahr and Dr. Lenz are private actors, they are not subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a defense attorney acting as counsel because the attorney does not act under color of state law.

Cheney v. Dean · filed 2020-05-27

As previously explained, Mr. Curnutt did not act under color of state law, and therefore cannot be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A private university does not act under color of state law for § 1983 merely by adopting disciplinary procedures in response to federal Title IX guidance.

Doe v. Harvard University · filed 2020-05-28

In sum, Plaintiff has not met his burden to plausibly plead that Harvard, or Harrington, were transformed into state actors for the purposes of § 1983.

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

Harris v. Hase · filed 2020-05-28

Harris thus cannot show that his attorneys were acting under color of law, so any claim for violation of his constitutional rights asserted through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Hase and Burns, must be dismissed.

Federal officials may face liability under § 1983 when their cooperation with state officials plausibly amounts to action under color of state law.

Hollins, Emon v. City of Madison · filed 2020-05-29

So there is a plausible basis for saying that the federal defendants were acting under color of state law. ... I won’t dismiss the claims against the federal defendants under the theory that they are not subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not reach private lending conduct when the defendants did not act under color of state or District of Columbia law.

Green v. Presidential Bank, Fsb · filed 2020-05-29

The Court concludes that the Complaint fails to state a due process claim against the private Defendants. Even if these Defendants violated a constitutionally protected right, Plaintiff does not allege that they acted “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or . . .the District of Columbia.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A retained attorney representing a client in criminal or civil proceedings does not act under color of state law for Section 1983.

McKinney v. Gilreath · filed 2020-05-29

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

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

Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems Incorporated · filed 2020-05-29

As SRC states in its motion, the complaint does not allege that it is a state actor. To the contrary, it appears from the face of the complaint that SRC is a private law firm. The § 1983 claim therefore is subject to dismissal.

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

WHITE v. TAVEL · filed 2020-05-29

As noted in the previous Order, in the absence of allegations suggesting that Defendant Tavel is a state actor, she cannot pursue a civil rights claim for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983’s under-color-of-state-law requirement covers a state official’s denial of a request while exercising authority assigned by state law.

Fair Maps Nevada v. Cegavske · filed 2020-05-29

Thus, the Court finds that the Secretary’s responsive letter denying Plaintiffs’ request (ECF No. 1-26) constitutes an action taken under color of state law as required by § 1983.

Section 1983 requires state action; allegations that do not reasonably suggest state action fail to state a claim against private defendants.

Constant v. DTE Electric Company · filed 2020-05-31

The Court finds that there are no factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint that reasonably suggest that any of the DTE Defendants engaged in conduct that could be construed as “state action.” The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a Section 1983 claim against any of the DTE Defendants.

A physician contracted by a county to provide medical services to inmates acts under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

McDonald v. Gilanyi · filed 2020-06-01

Because Durrani was acting under the color of state law, given that he is a physician contracted by Kenosha County, and Kenosha County delegated its obligation to provide medical services to inmates to him, the court will analyze the entire case as an ... exhaustion of administrative remedies case and apply that analysis to all defendants.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law; a special deputy attending firearms training as a private citizen at his own expense does not meet that requirement merely because of his official status.

Newell v. Huepenbecker · filed 2020-06-01

For all of these reasons, we hold that Huepenbecker did not act under color of state law and is therefore entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 claim lodged against him.

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

Toliver v. Hopkins County Jail · filed 2020-06-01

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

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against an inmate for an assault that was not state action.

(PC) Dillingham v. Garcia · filed 2020-06-01

Plaintiff cannot succeed in stating a claim against Soto in this § 1983 case because Soto was not a state actor, and his assault against Plaintiff was not a state action.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; purely private conduct does not give rise to liability.

Hart v. Town of Guilderland · filed 2020-06-01

However, there is no allegation that the Corporate Defendants were acting under the color of state law. See id. Therefore, Plaintiffs' due process claim against the Corporate Defendants will fail.

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

Ash v. City of N.Y. · filed 2020-06-01

The Court grants the remaining Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Mr. Ash’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Mr. Ash has failed to plausibly allege that the remaining Defendants acted under color of state law.

A § 1983 claim against an individual cannot proceed without facts supporting that the individual acted under color of law.

Berryman v. Stein · filed 2020-06-03

Berryman has not provided any facts to suggest that Scott was acting under color of law and therefore Berryman cannot sustain a § 1983 claim against Scott.

Section 1983 requires facts supporting a reasonable inference that the defendant acted under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of a federal right.

Carney v. Kirby · filed 2020-06-03

In other words, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to raise a reasonable inference that Defendants “acted under the color of state law” to deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional rights.

Section 1983 requires an allegation that the defendant acted under color of state law by using power possessed by virtue of state law.

Richard v. Tallant · filed 2020-06-05

Defendant has not made any allegation that Plaintiff acted under the color of state law by using power that Plaintiff possesses by virtue of state law. Therefore, she has not pled a valid claim under Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law and does not reach federal officials acting under federal law.

Kaswatuka v. The United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2020-06-05

Federal officials acting under color of federal, rather than state, law are not subject to suit under § 1983.