Card v. Oakland Police Department

Background

Christopher Lee Card, who was in custody at Santa Rita Jail and represented himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged constitutional violations occurring before his confinement and sought monetary relief. The operative amended complaint asserted a defamation claim against The Mercury News and Nate Gartrell, whom Card described as a court reporter with The Mercury News.

The court had previously dismissed the original complaint and allowed Card to amend. It reviewed the most recently filed amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of most prisoner lawsuits seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer and dismissal of claims that are not legally cognizable or seek relief from an immune defendant.

Court’s Analysis

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and action by a person acting under color of state law. The court explained that private conduct generally does not satisfy the state-action requirement. Private conduct can qualify only when there is a sufficiently close connection between the state and the challenged conduct, such as state coercion, significant encouragement, or joint participation.

The court found that Card alleged no facts suggesting that The Mercury News or Gartrell acted under color of state law or that their conduct could fairly be treated as conduct by the state. Because purely private conduct is not covered by § 1983, the court concluded that neither defendant was subject to suit under that statute.

Disposition

The court dismissed Card’s claims against The Mercury News and Gartrell without further leave to amend. It dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court also certified that any appeal without paying the filing fee would not be taken in good faith and directed the Clerk of Court to close the file.