4.4.2 Section 1983 Action under Color of State Law – – Determining When an Official Acted under Color of State Law Model [Defendant] is an official of [the state of ] [the county of ] [the city of ]. However, [defendant] alleges that during the events at issue in this lawsuit, [defendant] was acting as a private individual, rather than acting under color of state law. For an act to be under color of state law, the person doing the act must have been doing it while clothed with the authority of the state, by which I mean using or misusing the authority of the state. You should consider the nature of the act, and the circumstances under which it occurred, to determine whether it was under color of state law. The circumstances that you should consider include: [Using bullet points, list any factors discussed in the Comment below, and any other relevant factors, that are warranted by the evidence.] You must consider all of the circumstances and determine whether [plaintiff] has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that [defendant] acted under color of state law. Comment employment is generally sufficient to render the defendant a state Lugar “[S]tate actor.” 457 U.S. 922, 935 n.18 (1982). In some cases, however, a v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., government employee defendant may claim not to have acted under color of state law. Instruction 4.4.2 directs the jury to determine, based on the circumstances, whether such a defendant was acting under color of state law. Various factors may contribute to the conclusion concerning the presence or absence of action under color of state law. The court should list any relevant factors in Instruction 4.4.2. In the case of a police officer defendant, factors could include: Whether the defendant was on duty. This factor is relevant but not determinative. An off-duty officer who purports to exercise official authority acts under color of state law. Conversely, an officer who is pursuing purely private motives, in an interaction unconnected with his or her official duties, and who does not purport to exercise official authority does not act under color of state law.
4.4.2 Section 1983 – Action under Color of State Law – Determining When an Official Acted under Color of State Law Model [Defendant] is an official of [the state of ] [the county of ] [the city of ]. However, [defendant] alleges that during the events at issue in this lawsuit, [defendant] was acting as a private individual, rather than acting under color of state law. For an act to be under color of state law, the person doing the act must have been doing it while clothed with the authority of the state, by which I mean using or misusing the authority of the state. You should consider the nature of the act, and the circumstances under which it occurred, to determine whether it was under color of state law. The circumstances that you should consider include: [Using bullet points, list any factors discussed in the Comment below, and any other relevant factors, that are warranted by the evidence.] You must consider all of the circumstances and determine whether [plaintiff] has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that [defendant] acted under color of state law. Comment “[S]tate employment is generally sufficient to render the defendant a state actor.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 935 n.18 (1982). In some cases, however, a government employee defendant may claim not to have acted under color of state law. Instruction 4.4.2 directs the jury to determine, based on the circumstances, whether such a defendant was acting under color of state law. Various factors may contribute to the conclusion concerning the presence or absence of action under color of state law. The court should list any relevant factors in Instruction 4.4.2. In the case of a police officer defendant, factors could include: Whether the defendant was on duty. This factor is relevant but not determinative. An off-duty officer who purports to exercise official authority acts under color of state law. Conversely, an officer who is pursuing purely private motives, in an interaction unconnected with his or her official duties, and who does not purport to exercise official authority does not act under color of state law.
4_Chap_4_2014_spring.docx