42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 requires conduct by a person acting under color of state law; a defendant’s uncontested status as a state actor satisfies that requirement.

Kitchen v. Clinton County · filed 2020-06-08

Here, it is not contested that Defendant Pecht is a state actor, thus the first criterion is satisfied.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against defense attorneys for ineffective assistance or malpractice arising from their traditional representation in criminal proceedings.

Bennett v. Prop. 47 Public Defenders Deaprtment · filed 2020-06-10

This action against public defenders and attorneys representing him on appeal must fail because he cannot sue his lawyer for allegedly ineffective assistance or malpractice in a § 1983 action.

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

Pitchford v. Core Civic · filed 2020-06-10

Because the defendants in this case are not ... state employees acting under color of state law, Bacon and Polis clearly could not bring their claims in a § 1983 action.

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

Kane v. Core Civic · filed 2020-06-10

Because the defendants in this case are not ... state employees acting under color of state law, Bacon and Polis clearly could not bring their claims in a § 1983 action.

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

Polis v. Core Civic · filed 2020-06-10

Because the defendants in this case are not ... state employees acting under color of state law, Bacon and Polis clearly could not bring their claims in a § 1983 action.

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

Bacon v. Core Civic · filed 2020-06-10

Because the defendants in this case are not ... state employees acting under color of state law, Bacon and Polis clearly could not bring their claims in a § 1983 action.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; liability does not attach to actions taken under color of federal law.

Davis v. Charles Samuels, Jr. · filed 2020-06-11

Claims under Section 1983 require action taken under color of state, not federal law.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a private actor absent facts showing joint activity with the state or its agents.

Lurch, Jr. v. NYSDOCCS · filed 2020-06-12

Because Poolt is a private actor and Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting that she was “a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents,” Ciambriello v. Cty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 324 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), she is not subject to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a state official when the alleged violation occurs under color of state law.

Pavek v. Simon · filed 2020-06-15

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a claim for disparate treatment, and that such treatment occurred under the direction of the Secretary acting under color of state law.

A private medical provider may be sued under § 1983 when its challenged conduct is fairly attributable to the state; the provider’s relationship with the prisoner and the state bears on that question.

Atwater v. Kuber · filed 2020-06-16

“When a plaintiff brings a section 1983 claim against a defendant who is not a government official or employee, the plaintiff must show the private entity acted under the color of state law.” ... The court agrees that Atwater should have an opportunity to fully develop the factual record on this point.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law; a private law firm’s refusal to represent someone does not establish that requirement.

Ranzy v. Crumley Roberts, LLP · filed 2020-06-16

Plaintiff fails to allege that the law firm is a “person” under § 1983 or that either the law firm or its president acted under the color of state law by declining to represent him in a personal injury matter.

Section 1983 requires the alleged deprivation to be committed under color of state law; private clergy and a federal congressman are not state actors on the facts alleged here.

BURK v. CADWALLADER · filed 2020-06-16

Neither Logrip nor Cadwallader are alleged to have acted under color of state law when they purportedly assaulted Burk. They are identified as members of the Catholic clergy and are not alleged to be employees of a state or municipal government. Accordingly, any federal constitutional claim against them under § 1983 is not plausible.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a claim against federal defendants must allege a state-authorized role or act.

Watts v. USA · filed 2020-06-17

Plaintiff alleges no state-authorized role or acts by any Defendant—an essential element of any § 1983 claim.

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

Ayers v. Pines · filed 2020-06-17

The United States Supreme Court has held that public defenders do not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when they perform a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding. ... Plaintiff’s claims thus fail to state a § 1983 claim against Pines.

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

Foley v. Pacchiega · filed 2020-06-17

Plaintiff does not allege that Foley or Valdes were acting under the color of law and the Court cannot infer based on the allegations provided in the Second Amendment Complaint that he can state a viable Section 1983 claim against them.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to identify a defendant who acted under color of state law.

(PC) Booth v. Williams College · filed 2020-06-18

Furthermore, plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he has not identified any defendant who was acting under color of state law at the time of the alleged violations.

Section 1983 does not treat a prison telephone service provider as a state actor based solely on the facts that it provides telephone services to inmates.

Montgomery v. Hardin County Detention Center · filed 2020-06-18

Given the strong national trend towards not considering prison telephone service providers as state actors under Section 1983 and given that Montgomery has not otherwise advanced this argument, this Court concludes that Securus is not a state actor based on the facts as pleaded.

A private landlord’s staff does not act under color of state law under § 1983 merely by opening a tenant’s door at police officers’ direction.

Torres v. NYC Police Department · filed 2020-06-18

Nor does he mention Judge Fox’s conclusion that there is no genuine dispute of fact that BSA is a private entity, which was not working under the color of state law at the time of the incident on September 28, 2015. ... The Court, therefore, applies the clear-error standard of review and concludes that the Report is free of clear error. ... Accordingly, the Report is adopted in its entirety and BSA’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against private individuals who did not act under color of state law.

Rickard v. Riverside County Sheriffs Dept. · filed 2020-06-19

... (4) improperly included as Section ... 1983 defendants private individuals who did not act under color of state law, a judge who is immune from such a suit, and other officials who appear merely to have carried out a facially ... valid judicial order and would be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity; ... This Court agrees with and adopts the April Order, and finds that the Magistrate Judge properly dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend for the reasons discussed therein.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; a defense attorney’s representation of a criminal defendant does not, by itself, satisfy that requirement.

SAUERWINE v. HALIHAN · filed 2020-06-23

As there is no basis for concluding that Halihan is a state actor, Sauerwine cannot state a plausible claim against him under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; a criminal defense attorney defending federal charges does not meet that requirement.

Vann v. Katze · filed 2020-06-24

Vann’s criminal defense attorney, Katze, was not acting under color of state law in defending him against federal criminal charges in federal court.

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

Bostic v. Victor · filed 2020-06-26

Defendants argue the complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983 because there are no allegations that they acted under color of state law. ... After careful review of the complaint and defendants’ arguments for dismissal, the court agrees with defendants’ arguments regarding sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim.

Section 1983 treats a private corporation that provides essential government services as acting under color of state law.

VALE-GUGLIUZZI v. LAYTON · filed 2020-06-29

A private corporation that provides essential government services, such as CCS, acts under color of state law.

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

Hardeway v. Colonagosta · filed 2020-06-29

In this matter, Plaintiff has set forth no allegations indicating Colonagosta “may fairly be said to be a state actor,” and as such, he has failed to state a claim against her for a violation of his federally guaranteed rights.

Section 1983 requires conduct attributable to a person acting under color of state law.

Tuttle v. United States · filed 2020-06-29

Although Tuttle used a court-approved form for filing prisoner civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has not alleged that “the challenged conduct . . . was attributable to a person acting under color of state law.” ... Instead, he has challenged the actions of federal officials.

Section 1983 permits a claim against private facility employees when their conduct has a sufficient connection to the state to constitute state action.

KJ v. Lowe · filed 2020-06-29

Here, Plaintiff alleges enough facts for a viable claim that Defendants were acting as state actors.

Section 1983 can reach a public employee’s conduct after removal from particular duties when the employee misuses apparent official authority and a real nexus links that authority to the alleged violation.

Sturdivant v. USD 229 Blue Valley · filed 2020-06-30

Nonetheless, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff permits a reasonable inference that there was a “real nexus” between defendant Fine’s conduct and her authority as a District employee such that she was acting under color of state law for purposes of plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983’s color of state law requirement can be satisfied when a state employee misuses official authority to make false reports to law enforcement.

Merrill v. Copeland · filed 2020-06-30

The Court reasonably infers that “the air of official authority pervaded” Defendant’s reports to law enforcement. Id. (quoting United States v. Tarpley, 945 F.2d 806, 809 (5th Cir. 1991)). Thus, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged Defendant was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; the court found that the hospital staff did not meet that requirement.

Williams v. Jensen · filed 2020-07-02

St. Vincent Hospital is not a state actor. Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue someone who violates his constitutional rights while acting “under color” of state law—in other words, someone who is employed by the state. The staff of St. Vincent Hospital are not employed by the state.

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

Guy v. Pizzuti · filed 2020-07-02

The Section 1983 allegations are directed against private actors without any facts to indicate that they were “acting under color of state law,” which is an “essential proof requirement” for Section 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff suing private medical providers to show a sufficiently close connection between the state and the challenged conduct to establish state action.

WHITE v. WILLINGBORO TOWNSHIP · filed 2020-07-02

Plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary “close nexus” between the State and Lourdes’ actions to show that Lourdes and Dr. Rowshan are state actors, meaning that summary judgment must be granted on her Section 1983 claim.

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

Jolly v. Excelsior College · filed 2020-07-02

Section 1983 requires Jolly to prove that "a person acting under color of any state statute, regulation, custom or usage deprived" her of a constitutional right, but nowhere in the complaint does she allege that Excelsior acted with any state authority.

Section 1983 applies to persons acting under state law, so claims against federal defendants must proceed under a different cause of action.

Hulsey v. United States · filed 2020-07-06

Because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 applies to persons acting under state law, Hulsey’s claims against the federal defendants will be construed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Defense attorneys, even when appointed by a court, are not state actors under § 1983.

Moore v. Woodburn · filed 2020-07-06

Defense attorneys are private individuals and are not state actors within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when appointed by the court.

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

Landon v. Smith · filed 2020-07-07

In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right or rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). Nothing in the complaint indicates that Defendants are not private citizens or acting in any way under color of state law. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a constitutional claim against any Defendant.

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

Sissoko v. Davison County Treasurer/Administrator · filed 2020-07-07

There are no factual allegations in Sissoko’s complaint or affidavit suggesting that the Billion Defendants were acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 claims against public defenders and private attorneys acting as counsel require action under color of state law.

Sanders v. Deputy District Attorney V. Lai · filed 2020-07-08

Section 1983 claims against public defenders and the private attorney are not cognizable because they are private individuals for purposes of section 1983, and therefore do not act under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; the private mortgage defendants were not subject to suit under it.

Gibson v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2020-07-08

Generally to be considered to have acted “under color of state law,” the person must be a state or local government official or employee. Only Pinkney is a government official. The other Defendants are not subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a lawyer representing a client as a state actor merely because the lawyer is an officer of the court.

Green v. McClain · filed 2020-07-09

Therefore, “a lawyer representing a client is not, by virtue of being an officer of the court, a state actor ‘under color of state law’ within the meaning of § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not provide a claim against a privately retained attorney for conduct that was not under color of state law.

McCreary v. State of Mississippi · filed 2020-07-10

The fact that Defendant Burke was retained by McCreary to represent him in this case does not establish that she was acting “under color of state law.”

Section 1983 does not provide a claim against federal officials acting under federal law.

Taylor v. Director Office of Information Policy · filed 2020-07-13

No claim lies under § 1983 when the actions are taken under color of federal law.

Section 1983 permits suit only against a person or entity acting under color of law; a private corporation acting on its own behalf is not amenable to suit.

Jones v. Motel 6 Operating L.P. · filed 2020-07-13

Second: Section 1983 suits can only be brought against someone or some entity acting “under color of law.” Private individuals, like Ms. Barber, and private corporations, like Motel 6, are not “state actors.” They act on their own behalf, not the state’s. Thus, Motel 6 is not amenable to suit under § 1983.

A city acts under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983 when it issues citations for violations of city ordinances.

Ramelli v. Zahn · filed 2020-07-14

The litter citations were issued by the City of Kenner for purported violations of city ordinances. It is not disputed that the issuance of the citations, therefore, occurred under color of state law.

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

Barbero v. Davidson · filed 2020-07-14

This case does not arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because a § 1983 claim requires the defendants to have acted under color of state law, which is not alleged here.

Section 1983 does not make a private person a state actor merely because she gives police false information; her conduct must be attributable to the state or involve joint action with state agents.

Weser v. Goodson · filed 2020-07-15

Even if Goodson deliberately lied in her statements about Weser, that would not show that her conduct was fairly attributable to the state or that she was participating in a joint action with state agents. We accordingly affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Goodson’s favor on this claim.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law; a private party may qualify through state coercion, an exclusive public function, or joint action with the state.

Darby II v. Sprint Corporation Telecommunication · filed 2020-07-16

A private party may be held liable as a state actor only if one of the following three conditions is met: (1) the State has coerced or at least significantly encouraged the action alleged to violate the Constitution (“State compulsion test”); (2) the private parties performed a public function that was traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State (“public function test”); or (3) “the State had so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with the [private parties] that it was a joint participant in the enterprise[ ]” (“nexus/joint action test”).

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

ELDER v. DOBSON · filed 2020-07-20

Ripley was therefore not a person acting under color of state law and Mr. Elder cannot state a claim against him under § 1983.

Section 1983 applies only to actions by state actors acting under color of state law.

Kane v. Core Civic · filed 2020-07-20

A § 1983 action can target only actions by state actors, and Kane does not allege any facts that could indicate that any of the defendants were acting under color of state law.

Section 1983’s under-color-of-state-law requirement is satisfied by a state voter ID law and its enforcement.

Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama · filed 2020-07-21

Because the Alabama voter ID law and its enforcement fall squarely under color of state law, we need only address the constitutionality of the law.

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

(PC) Ramsey v. California Department of Corrections · filed 2020-07-21

Distinguishing between a private party and a government employee is crucial towards establishing liability under § 1983. ... Because plaintiff has not clearly alleged whether Rasheed was a hospital employee or an optometrist employed by the prison, the Court cannot properly analyze plaintiff’s complaint against Rasheed. Thus, plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against Rasheed.

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

Morgan v. Doe · filed 2020-07-21

Plaintiff has not identified the driver of the semi-truck, nor has he alleged the driver was a state actor or participating in any joint effort with a state actor.

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

White v. Verzola · filed 2020-07-21

One of the elements of a § 1983 claim, however, is that the defendant be a state actor. ... A previously stated, plaintiff has not demonstrated that Dr. Verzola acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a private attorney to have acted under color of state law; conclusory allegations of a conspiracy with a judge do not suffice.

Gardner v. Coe · filed 2020-07-22

Rather, the Complaint indicates only Gardner’s dissatisfaction with his attorneys’ representation, Clarke’s representation of his employer, and Judge Coe’s rulings regarding the fee agreement and benefit payments, and his conclusory allegations of a conspiracy between the Defendants are insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not treat a private counselor or his employer as state actors merely because parole required the plaintiff to attend counseling.

Strowmatt v. Curtis · filed 2020-07-23

Here, Strowmatt asserts only that he was required to attend counseling with Curtis as a condition of his parole. It cannot be plausibly inferred from these facts that either Curtis or Lincoln Therapeutic Partnership can be fairly deemed state actors.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant, acting under color of state law, caused a constitutional injury; a state’s enforcement of ballot restrictions is state action.

BOND v. DUNLAP · filed 2020-07-24

A plaintiff asserting these claims through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the Plaintiff does here, must prove that the defendant, acting under the color of state law, caused a constitutional injury. Although COVID-19 itself does not constitute state action, Maine’s decision to enforce its ballot restrictions is state action, and the reasonableness of such restrictions must be considered against the altered landscape during the pandemic, which includes actions taken by the State in its response.

Section 1983 requires a plausible allegation that the defendant acted under color of state law; a lender’s motion to lift a bankruptcy stay and subsequent foreclosure did not satisfy that requirement here.

In Re: Aurora Commercial Corp. · filed 2020-07-24

In any event, there is no plausible allegation ALS acted “under the color of state law” in prosecuting its motion to lift the stay in the Colorado bankruptcy court or by foreclosing on Pierre’s properly.

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

Sicinska v. Google · filed 2020-07-28

Further, the complaint does not include facts that would give rise to a plausible inference that the plaintiff has suffered the deprivation of a protected right, see Melton v. District of Columbia, 85 F. Supp. 3d 183, 193 (D.D.C. 2015) (“Events may not have unfolded as Plaintiff wished, but [her] dissatisfaction . . . [does] not form a basis for a due process violation”), or how Google may be sued pursuant to Section 1983, where there is no indication that it is a state actor acting under color of state law, see City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 829 (1985).

Section 1983 requires plausible allegations that a defendant acted under color of state law or that the alleged infringement of federal rights was fairly attributable to the government.

Banuelos v. Reyes · filed 2020-07-28

Plaintiff has not stated any factually plausible allegations that the defendant was acting under color of state law or that he engaged in any infringements of federal rights that are fairly attributable to the government.

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

(PS) Pierson v. Sutter Health · filed 2020-07-28

Namely, that Plaintiff has failed to allege an action under color of state law and therefore cannot bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action against the named Defendants.

Section 1983 requires a private actor to have acted with a state actor to be liable for a violation of federal rights.

Pinney v. James · filed 2020-07-29

Pinney still has not sufficiently alleged a meeting of the minds between James and any state actor; any claim against James fails for that reason.

Section 1983 treats private medical professionals who provide care to county jail inmates as acting under color of state law.

Stewart v. Warren County Bd. of Comm'rs · filed 2020-07-30

Because “private medical professionals who provide healthcare services to inmates at a county jail qualify as government officials acting under the color of state law for the purposes of § 1983,” Bonita can prevail against Epling, Randol, or Solutions if she can show they violated Justin’s rights under federal law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a public defender reporting alleged threats as a private citizen does not meet that requirement.

Goodell v. Malkin · filed 2020-07-30

Plaintiff’s first and second objections will be overruled because Defendant was not acting under color of state law when he reported Plaintiff’s alleged threats, instead he was acting as a private citizen.

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

Friedman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC. · filed 2020-07-31

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does not claim that the private Defendants are state employees; nor does he allege any facts demonstrating that they otherwise acted under color of state law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the private Defendants must be dismissed.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to identify a person acting under color of state law who is responsible for the alleged deprivation of rights.

Sekiya v. Anderson · filed 2020-07-31

Sekiya has not identified any wrongdoers responsible for his living conditions, or “person[s] acting under color of state law.” McLaughlin v. Bd. of Tr., 215 F.3d at 1172.

Section 1983 requires allegations that a private defendant jointly acted with state actors to deprive someone of federal rights.

Al-amin v. State of Tennessee · filed 2020-07-31

But in the absence of any allegation that these private individuals jointly participated with state actors to deprive Plaintiff of his federal rights, they are not proper defendants acting “under color of state law” for purposes of Section 1983.

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

Tillison v. Brusie · filed 2020-08-04

Specifically, Plaintiff named a private person as a defendant to this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and failed to present any facts from which the Court could infer that she was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; employees of a privately operated federal detention facility do not qualify.

Adams v. Koehn · filed 2020-08-04

Though he styles this action as one under § 1983, that statute only authorizes claims against people acting under color of state law, and the NSDC is not a state agency—it is a privately operated federal detention facility.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the alleged constitutional deprivation was committed by someone acting under color of state law; a claim against a private medical provider may proceed when the allegations suggest a sufficient relationship with the state.

Green, Damien v. Adams · filed 2020-08-05

Because Green suggests that Sullivan routinely handles podiatry cases for DOC inmates, I will not dismiss his Eighth Amendment claim against Sullivan, but he should be aware that whether Sullivan acted under color of law may be contested by defendants.

Section 1983 does not provide a claim against private defendants without facts showing that they acted under color of state law.

LAX v. COMPLETE PROPERTY CARE MANAGER · filed 2020-08-05

To the extent Ms. Lax intends to bring her § 1983 claims for violation of her civil rights against Defendants "Complete Property Care Manager and the Private Owner of Unit 807 S Shipley Street" and Epic Insurance Solution, she has not alleged facts satisfying the "under color of state law" requirement of that statute.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against tribal police officers acting under color of tribal law rather than state law.

Lafley v. Adams · filed 2020-08-06

Judge DeSoto correctly determined that a § 1983 claim cannot lie against tribal officers because tribal police do not act under color of state law; they act under color of tribal law.

Section 1983 does not treat appointed defense attorneys performing traditional representation of a criminal defendant as acting under color of state law.

Butler v. Rice · filed 2020-08-06

Therefore, any action taken by Defendants Felkins or Dawson was not a state action for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Defendants Felkins and Dawson are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

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

Nacer v. Shea · filed 2020-08-07

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.”

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

Sherman v. Kush · filed 2020-08-10

Section 1983 claims require that a defendant was acting “under color of state law” at the time the acts complained of were committed, and here there is no indication that either of the defendants were acting under color of state law; Constitutional provisions guarantee individual rights but do not provide independent bases for civil actions; lastly, Rule 57 is a procedural rule and does not confer a private cause of action.

A private entity can face a Section 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges that it conspired with state actors to violate federally protected rights.

Nutt v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2020-08-11

To state a section 1983 claim against a private individual or entity, a plaintiff would have to plausibly allege the existence of “(1) some type of conspiracy or agreement between the [District] and [Wal-Mart]; (2) a demonstration the parties shared common goals; and (3) conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy or agreement that violates federally protected rights.” ... Here, the complaint is devoid of any allegations of a conspiracy between Wal-Mart and any state actors.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a private attorney may qualify by conspiring with a state official, but conclusory allegations of an agreement are insufficient.

(PS) Kuneman v. Prouty · filed 2020-08-12

To state a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege that the defendants acted under color of state law to deprive him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes. ... These allegations fail to show that either defendant Ludington or Peter conspired with a state official such that they could be considered to have acted under color of state law.

A private entity can satisfy § 1983’s state action requirement when the state compels or controls the conduct underlying the claim.

Thompson v. CRF-Cluster Model Program, LLC · filed 2020-08-14

The Court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged state action under a compulsion theory. ... Thus, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Defendant’s collection of those documents was done under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that each defendant acted under color of state law; a private party’s conduct must be fairly attributable to the state.

Canders v. Negron · filed 2020-08-17

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting that CGS,Negron, and Simeonacted under color of state law.

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

Marglon v. Child Protection Services · filed 2020-08-18

Because Marglon fails to allege that Ms. Miller acted under color of state law in depriving him of federal right, his claim against her is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that an official acted under color of state law; the official’s status alone does not establish that element for conduct on a social media page.

Phillips v. Ochoa · filed 2020-08-20

Phillips concludes—but has not pled any true facts to show—that Judge Ochoa’s conduct about the Facebook page was clothed in the authority of state law. Phillips’s claim against Judge Ochoa is therefore dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 1983 requires the alleged deprivation of federal rights to be committed by a person acting under color of state law; a father’s failure to pay court-ordered child support does not satisfy that requirement.

WEST v. WEST · filed 2020-08-24

Instead, he alleges that his father, who is not a state actor, violated a state court order. While his father may be in contempt of a state court order, this does not state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox · filed 2020-08-24

As all Defendants are private individuals or entities who do not work for, or constitute part of, any state or other government body, Plaintiff has not stated a claim against any Defendant under § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; purely private conduct does not qualify.

ELANSARI v. BARR · filed 2020-08-24

Sixth, private individuals such as Maticolla and Rahuba are not subject to liability under § 1983.

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

Gaylord v. The Clay House · filed 2020-08-27

Plaintiff’s complaint fails plausibly to allege that Defendants acted under color of state law—an essential element to the maintenance of a Section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against private citizens merely because they gave information to law enforcement.

Doe v. Rivera · filed 2020-08-27

Further, the plaintiff’s claims against defendants Rivera and Unknown Co-Conspirator will be dismissed with prejudice, as neither defendant is a state or federal actor – and thus cannot be sued under § 1983 or Bivens.

Section 1983 applies only to conduct under color of state law; actions taken under federal law do not give rise to liability under it.

Lloyd v. Barr · filed 2020-08-27

It is accordingly well-settled that liability under § 1983 will not attach for actions taken under color of federal law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law; allegations against private prison personnel without state involvement do not state a claim.

Flemming v. Baker · filed 2020-08-28

Plaintiff provides no factual claim or support for a claim that any proposed defendant acted under color of state law. Therefore, even if Plaintiff were to name the additional defendants, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a public defender for performing traditional defense work unless facts support a conspiracy with a state official.

Hinton v. Shefferman · filed 2020-08-29

In addition, public defenders do 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 requires a plaintiff suing a private defendant to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Powell v. New York City Police Department · filed 2020-08-31

Plaintiff’s claims against Bronx Lebanon Hospital and Brookdale Hospital must be dismissed because plaintiff does not adequately allege that those private defendants were acting under color of state law, as Section 1983 requires.

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

Cheesman v. Swissport USA Inc · filed 2020-09-01

Plaintiff claims to have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but this statute requires that the defendant be acting “under color of state law.” There is no allegation to that effect in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of state law; allegations that a doctor damaged a detainee’s optic nerves during surgery did not establish that requirement.

(PC) Ring v. Allenby · filed 2020-09-02

The magistrate judge further found that the allegations fail to show that Defendant Doctor Rasheed, who allegedly damaged plaintiff’s optic nerves during surgery, was acting under color of state law when he performed the surgery. ... The findings and recommendations issued on June 30, 2020 (Doc. No. 24) are adopted in full; ... The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; private attorneys representing litigants are not state actors merely because of that representation.

Mandawala v. Baptist School of Health Professions · filed 2020-09-03

First, as counsel representing Baptist and TENET, the Court cannot find Holbrook and Elgie were state actors acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 permits claims against private parties whose alleged joint action with state officials plausibly makes them state actors.

Kedrowski v. Richards · filed 2020-09-03

Judged against these standards, Kedrowski’s allegations are sufficient. ... These types of activities—exercising internal voting power over a court’s activities, discussing the proper handling and outcome of a particular case with the assigned judicial officer, implementing judicial decision-making procedures or devices, and implementing court policy—seem comparable to those the Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit have found show joint action between a private party and the state.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to be a state actor or a private party acting under color of state law.

Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P. · filed 2020-09-03

Brady’s sixth claim for relief glancingly mentions 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but it also fails to allege a violation of that statute, which requires that a defendant sued thereunder be either a state actor or a private party acting “under color of state law.”

Section 1983 does not treat a residential program as a state actor merely because a person in public custody participates in it.

Smith v. Bush · filed 2020-09-03

Here, just because Plaintiff is an inmate in public custody who resided at Father House while participating in a rehabilitative or reentry program does not transform Father House into a state actor.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a fellow prisoner who was not acting under color of state law.

(PC) Nguyen v. Givens · filed 2020-09-04

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

Section 1983 does not provide a damages claim against federal public defenders or federally appointed private attorneys for their work representing a habeas petitioner.

Bolin v. Williams · filed 2020-09-04

Plaintiff’s allegations of breach of contract, legal malpractice and various wrongdoing on ... the part of defendants — two federal public defenders and a private attorney appointed to represent ... him in his federal habeas proceedings — in connection with their defense of plaintiff accordingly ... fail to state a viable claim for damages under § 1983 or Bivens.

Section 1983 does not provide a damages remedy against federal judges acting pursuant to federal law rather than state law.

Stafne v. Zilly · filed 2020-09-08

Stafne’s claim for damages under § 1983 has no legal basis, as the federal judicial defendants acted pursuant to federal law, not state law.

A lawyer representing a client, whether retained or appointed, does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

Cairns v. Kozel · filed 2020-09-08

“The conduct of counsel, either retained or appointed, in representing clients, does not constitute action under color of state law for purposes of a section 1983 violation.” Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff’s Complaint therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Del Campo v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2020-09-08

Defendant Waylon [William] Barr and the unidentified Department of Justice agent are federal agents acting under color of their authority, not persons acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; conduct alleged to be entirely under federal law does not support a claim.

Nigro v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency · filed 2020-09-08

The amended complaint alleges that PHEAA was acting entirely under federal, not state law. ... Thus, Nigro’s § 1983 claim “cannot stand.” Davis, 962 F.3d at 115.

Private mental health providers can act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes when their involvement in an involuntary commitment is sufficiently intertwined with state authority.

Rawson v. Recovery Innovations, Inc. · filed 2020-09-09

We conclude that the facts in this case show that the Defendants acted under color of state law.

A private treatment provider’s contract with the state does not by itself make the provider a state actor under Section 1983; the plaintiff must show that the provider and state were sufficiently interdependent.

ALLAH v. O'CONNER · filed 2020-09-09

And despite Mr. Allah’s contentions regarding Gaudenzia’s contract with the Department of Corrections, the mere existence of a contract does not establish that Gaudenzia was acting under color of state law, and it is Mr. Allah’s burden to show that Gaudenzia and the state were so interdependent that they must be recognized as joint participants.

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

Campbell v. Navient Corporation · filed 2020-09-10

The § 1983 claim fails as a matter of law given that there are no allegations that Navient acted under the color of state law.

A private contractor that provides medical care in a correctional facility acts under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983.

SHUCK v. TALBOT · filed 2020-09-11

Because Wexford acts under color of state law by contracting to perform a government function, i.e., providing medical care to correctional facilities, it is treated as a government entity for purposes of Section 1983 claims.

Section 1983 requires factual allegations that a defendant acted under color of state law; a bare assertion is insufficient.

Michelson v. Miller · filed 2020-09-11

Although the Second Amended Complaint contains a formulatic recitation of the “color of state law” requirement, Plaintiff makes absolutely no factual allegations to support the contention that Defendant Dow was acting under the color of state law when he had Plaintiff transferred back to BCDF.

Section 1983 does not treat a public defender performing traditional lawyer functions as acting under color of state law.

Young v. McNamara · filed 2020-09-14

Secondly, a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions, such as entering pleas, making motions, objecting at trial, cross-examining witnesses, and making closing arguments.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a complaint that does not allege that element fails to state a claim.

Fernandez v. MCC · filed 2020-09-14

He fails to allege that the MCC or unidentified ... officers who beat him acted under color of state law. Therefore, he fails to state a claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on private attorneys, law firms, or citizens who did not act under color of state law.

Thomas v. Charleston County · filed 2020-09-15

The Magistrate Judge found the following: ... (6) Defendants who are attorneys or law firms or “private citizens” are not “state actors” for purpose of ... claims brought under § 1983;6 ... The court concurs in the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

Court-appointed defense counsel is not a state actor for purposes of a § 1983 damages claim based on ineffective assistance.

DeRouen v. Dupont · filed 2020-09-16

DeRouen’s claims against T.B. Dupont for ineffective assistance of counsel cannot support a damages suit under section 1983 because the attorney is not a state actor.

Section 1983 can reach a private party who willfully participates with state officials in conduct that violates federal rights.

TAVERNA v. PALMER TOWNSHIP · filed 2020-09-16

However, private parties that engage in the prohibited action with state officials may be liable under Section 1983, if they act as willful participants in the activity. ... Likewise, given the allegations in the Complaint, the Court may infer that Tuskes acted as a willful participant with the Township. Thus, the Court will not dismiss Mr. Taverna’s substantive due process claim against Tuskes.

Section 1983 does not cover a court-appointed defense lawyer’s traditional work as counsel because that work is not state action.

Zeleny v. Bryant · filed 2020-09-18

Therefore, any action taken by Defendant Tressler was not a state action for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against her.

Section 1983 requires a plausible allegation that the defendant acted under color of state law; being named in a state court lawsuit does not suffice.

MCCALL v. GLENDALE UPTOWN HOME/GS OPERATOR LP · filed 2020-09-18

Because there is no plausible allegation that these Defendants were acting under color of state law, to the extent McCall’s Complaint may be read to assert a § 1983 claim against them, the claim must be dismissed.

Section 1983 permits suit against an independent medical contractor who provides care to a state inmate as a willing participant in joint action with public servants acting under color of state law.

East v. Dooley · filed 2020-09-18

In providing medical care to a state inmate like East, however, PA Adams was a “willing participant[] in a joint action with public servants acting under color of state law” and thus may be sued under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide recovery against private defendants who were not acting under color of state law.

Welress v. The Clam Man · filed 2020-09-21

The Clam Man appears to be a private business and its employee a private person. Thus, any recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is precluded because the defendants were not acting under of state law.

Section 1983 does not cover a public defender or retained counsel representing a criminal defendant because that work is not performed under color of state law.

Waterman (ID 126456) v. Conard · filed 2020-09-22

Neither a public defender nor retained counsel acts under color of state law in representing a criminal defendant.

Section 1983 permits a civil rights suit only against a defendant acting under color of state law.

Campbell v. Campbell · filed 2020-09-23

Section 1983 of Title 42 allows a person to sue for a violation of his civil (constitutional) rights only if the defendant was acting “under color” of state law. ... The complaint does not allege that Randall was a state official or that he was acting under the authority of state law.

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

Burns v. Corrections Corporation of America · filed 2020-09-25

Plaintiff provides no factual claim or support for a claim that Defendants acted under color of state law. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause why his claims under § 1983 should not be dismissed.

Section 1983 requires a private store security officer to act under color of state law; allegations of false statements to police without a pre-arranged arrest plan do not plausibly meet that requirement.

VASQUEZ v. WALMART · filed 2020-09-25

Plaintiff's conclusory allegations, therefore, fail to plausibly allege action under the color of state law. The Section 1983 Claim, accordingly, is dismissed without prejudice.

A private person who actively participates with police officers in a search and arrest may act under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983.

Borisova v. Friberg · filed 2020-09-25

At the motion to dismiss stage, the plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Friberg was acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a private party that jointly acts with state officials to deprive someone of constitutional rights when the complaint plausibly alleges an agreement and willing participation.

Spoon v. Bayou Bridge Pipeline LLC · filed 2020-09-29

Considering the nature of the claims and the standard to be applied in this matter, the Court finds that the allegations in the Complaint do not violate Rule 8, and BBP’s Motion to Dismiss the Section 1983 claims is DENIED.

Section 1983 does not reach misconduct by inmate workers because they do not act under color of state law.

STOKES v. ARAMARK CORPORATION · filed 2020-09-29

Inmate workers are not considered to be acting under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.

A lawyer representing a client does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983, even when appointed as a public defender.

West v. Wilson · filed 2020-09-29

Here, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Wilson for three reasons. First, “it is well-settled that a lawyer representing a client is not a state actor under color of law within the meaning of § 1983[,] . . . even in cases where a public defender has been assigned to represent an indigent defendant.” Kenny v. Bartman, No. 16-2152, 2017 WL 3613601, at *3 (6th Cir. May 19, 2017) (citing Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318–19 & n.7 (1981)).

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a private insurer unless it acted under color of state law.

KROISS v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANIES · filed 2020-09-30

As its plain language indicates, § 1983 applies only to persons acting under color of state law, and Mrs. Kroiss here does not (nor could she) allege that the Cincinnati Insurance was acting under color of any state law when it allegedly discriminated against her.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law; private parties whose alleged conduct lacks that connection cannot be held liable under it.

Carroll v. Christiansen · filed 2020-09-30

The two patients whom Plaintiff names as Defendants, Joker T. and James C., are private parties who are not alleged to have been acting under color of state law when they made harassing or threatening comments. Therefore, no plausible § 1983 claim is stated against them.

Section 1983 does not make a private person liable for merely reporting a concern to police without facts showing joint action with state officials.

MACOLINO v. TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MORELAND · filed 2020-09-30

The mere act of reporting a concern to law enforcement does not suffice in establishing concerted action for purposes of § 1983 liability. ... Here, even taking as true Plaintiff’s allegation that both Defendant Mullen and Defendant Officer McCoy knew that the property dispute was a civil matter, Plaintiff has alleged no facts to support an agreement or pre-arranged plan between Mullen and Officer McCoy to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Thus, I will dismiss all federal claims against Defendant Mullen.

A § 1983 claim against a private party must allege facts showing a mutual understanding or meeting of the minds with a state actor.

Phillips v. St. Louis Community Credit Union · filed 2020-10-01

Plaintiff does not allege any mutual understanding or meeting of the minds occurred between the Credit Union and Officer Greene.

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

(PC) Fisher v. Graham · filed 2020-10-02

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

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant deprived her of a federal right while acting under color of state or territorial law.

Kahyaoglu v. Sayied · filed 2020-10-02

The court construes this claim to assert a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, under the statute, a plaintiff must show not only that “some person deprived [her] 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)) (alteration in the original). Plaintiff does not allege that either defendant was a state actor or was otherwise acting under color of law.

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

Jenkins v. New West Sports Medicine · filed 2020-10-02

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the United States Constitution or created by federal statute, and also must show that the alleged deprivation was caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state law. ... None of the defendants are alleged to be federal officers or to have acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 does not cover a public official’s conduct unrelated to the duties of the office.

Greenleaf v. City Of Chicago · filed 2020-10-05

Because Moore was not acting under the “color of state law” in his duties as alderman, Greenleaf’s constitutional claims against him fail.

Section 1983 does not cover tribal employees performing tribal police and medical duties when they are not acting under color of state law.

Reed v. Hyatt · filed 2020-10-05

Plaintiff also has failed to state a § 1983 claim because none of the named Defendant were acting under the color of state law during the incidents at issue.

Section 1983 does not cover a claim against the Postal Service because it does not act under color of state law.

Cummings v. United States Postal Service · filed 2020-10-08

The Postal Service is an agency of the United States and therefore does not act under color of state law.

Public defenders performing their traditional role as criminal defense counsel do not act under color of state law and cannot be sued under § 1983 for that representation.

Clark v. Allen · filed 2020-10-09

Thus, Public Defenders Allen, Parks, and Pirani are not subject to suit under § 1983.

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

Lickteig · filed 2020-10-09

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) each defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) that he violated a right secured by the constitution. ... Lickteig has not alleged that the banks are governmental institutions or that they are acting under color of law or conspiring with state actors. ... No claim for relief is therefore stated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not make a private person a state actor merely because she calls the police or seeks a protective order.

Sentementes v. Bethel · filed 2020-10-09

Moreover, Bastone cannot be considered a state actor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on her calling the police or seeking a protective order.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; private conduct without a connection to state authority does not qualify.

CULLUM v. SMITH · filed 2020-10-09

To allege a viable claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federally secured right. ... Defendants Donna Smith and Curtis Moreland appear to be private citizens, and Plaintiff has not provided any facts to indicate that their conduct occurred under the authority of state law.

Section 1983 requires facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federally protected right; a private landlord is not a state actor.

Stroud v. Farr Rentals, LLC · filed 2020-10-13

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that the defendant acted under color of state law, and that the defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct deprived her of a federally-protected right. See Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010). Here, as in the original complaint, plaintiff’s allegations do not state a § 1983 claim against any named defendant. Farr Rentals is alleged to be a private landlord, not a state actor.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; a lawyer’s representation of a client, whether retained or appointed, does not satisfy that requirement.

Cairns v. Kozel · filed 2020-10-13

As the court previously explained, to state a claim under this statute, the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s rights must have been caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state law, see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988), and “[t]he conduct of counsel, either retained or appointed, in representing clients, does not constitute action under color of state law for purposes of a section 1983 violation.” Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983’s color of state law requirement can be satisfied by allegations that professionals acted for a state corrections department.

Barber v. Frakes · filed 2020-10-13

In sum, Barber’s Complaint sufficiently alleges that the defendants’ actions were performed under color of state law, and that their actions resulted in the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to Barber.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against private parties who are not acting under color of state law.

Pappas v. Lorintz · filed 2020-10-15

Finally, Maria Pappas, her lawyer Kruman, and TD Bank, N.A., are not state actors, nor were they “acting under color of state law,” and therefore are not subject to a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not cover a private attorney’s conduct in representing a client because that conduct is not under color of state law.

Morris v. Hewitt · filed 2020-10-19

Similarly, a private attorney does not act under color of law for purposes of § 1983.

Section 1983 permits claims against private employees who act under color of state law.

Jeffery v. Fuentes · filed 2020-10-20

“Most defendants under § 1983 are public employees, but private companies and their employees can also act under color of state law and thus can be sued under § 1983.” ... The court will assume, for screening purpose only, that Fuentez and Officer #2 were acting under color of state law when they transported the plaintiff to the Milwaukee County Jail and will allow the deliberate indifference claim against them to proceed.

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

WASHINGTON v. MALMUD · filed 2020-10-20

Defendants are a group of private individuals working for a private business, and Plaintiff does not allege that they or their employer were acting under color of state law. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff intended to bring § 1983 claims against Defendants, those claims are dismissed.

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

PATEL v. CRIST · filed 2020-10-20

Plaintiffs, however, still fail to provide any facts to substantiate their allegation or through which the Court could infer that any of the Allstate Defendants are state actors. As a result, Count One is dismissed as to the Allstate Defendants.

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

Baca v. Clovis Police Department · filed 2020-10-20

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the Hospital also fail. The Amended Complaint confirms the Hospital is a division of Presbyterian, and there is no indication it acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law; tribal officers, agents, and private corporations do not meet that requirement when enforcing tribal laws or managing tribal affairs.

Holtz v. Oneida Airport Hotel Corp. · filed 2020-10-21

With regard to Holtz’s § 1983 claim, alleging violations under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the court correctly concluded that none of the defendants were persons acting under color of state law. When they are enforcing tribal laws or managing tribal affairs, neither tribal officers and agents nor private corporations act under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under color of law; private conduct must have a sufficiently close connection to the state.

WESTBROOK v. CABELAS · filed 2020-10-21

To bring a claim under § 1983, however, Mr. Westbrook must show that Defendants were acting under color of law.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law and does not provide a cause of action against a federal official acting under color of federal law.

Bailey v. Trump · filed 2020-10-22

Defendant Trump, as President of the United States, acts under color of federal, not state, law, and therefore Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against him for a claimed violation of federal rights.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against private individuals who did not act under color of state law.

MARTIN v. SUTTON · filed 2020-10-22

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Laquanta Holloway, Sam Epps, or Leroy Martin because she has not shownthat they acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law; a complaint must allege facts showing that private defendants are government actors.

Hart v. McDonald's · filed 2020-10-23

The Complaint contains no information allowing the Court to conclude that McDonald’s and its operator are government actors.