3d Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 4.4.1

23

In cases involving material disputes of fact concerning action under color of state law, the 24

court should tailor the instructions on this element to the nature of the theory by which the plaintiff 25

is attempting to show action under color of state law. This comment provides an overview of some 26

theories that can establish such action; Instructions 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 provide models of instructions 27

for use with two such theories. 28

29

“[C]onduct satisfying the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment satisfies 30

[Section 1983’s] requirement of action under color of state law.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 31

457 U.S. 922, 935 n.18 (1982). 14 “ Like the state -action requirement of the Fourteenth 32

Amendment, the under -color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach ‘ “merely 33

private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” ’ ” American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. 34

14 See also Brentwood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288,

295 n.2 (2001) (“If a defendant's conduct satisfies the state -action requirement of the Fourteenth

Amendment, the conduct also constitutes action ‘under color of state law’ for § 1983 purposes.”).