Goldberg v. 400 East Ohio Condominium Ass'n
12 F Supp 2d 820, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10773, 1998 WL 409400 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private condominium association's enactment and enforcement of its own rules does not constitute state action 'under color of law' for a § 1983 claim. Neither the mere possibility of future judicial enforcement of a private rule, nor the association's exercise of quasi-governmental powers like rulemaking and fining, is sufficient to transform a private entity into a state actor.
Facts:
- Marcy Goldberg was a resident of a condominium in Illinois.
- The condominium's Board of Directors enacted a rule prohibiting all 'canvassing or distributing of materials to individual units' except for materials related to political campaigning.
- The Illinois Condominium Property Act, a state law, forbids condominium boards from adopting rules that 'impair any rights guaranteed by the First Amendment'.
- Goldberg distributed leaflets concerning condominium governance, which she believed was a protected activity.
- In response to her leafletting, the condominium association placed a lien on Goldberg's unit as a penalty.
Procedural Posture:
- Marcy Goldberg filed a lawsuit against her condominium association and its board of directors in federal district court (a court of first instance).
- Goldberg's complaint alleged a violation of her First Amendment rights, bringing the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
- The basis for the motion to dismiss was that the complaint failed to state a valid claim because the association, as a private entity, did not act 'under color of state law' as required by § 1983.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private condominium association's rule restricting the distribution of materials within the building constitute state action 'under color of law' for the purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, either because state courts could potentially enforce the rule or because the association performs quasi-governmental functions?
Opinions:
Majority - Aspen, Chief Judge.
No. A private condominium association's rule restricting the distribution of materials does not constitute state action 'under color of law.' To establish state action, there must be actual involvement by the state, not merely the potential for future involvement or the performance of functions that are not exclusively governmental. First, the court rejected the argument to extend Shelley v. Kraemer, which found state action in judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants. The court held that Shelley requires 'active intervention' by a state court, such as a judgment or order. In this case, the condominium association had not secured any state court judgment against Goldberg; the mere possibility of future enforcement is insufficient to create state action. Second, the court dismissed the argument that the association's powers—such as making rules, conducting hearings, and imposing fines and liens—transform it into a state actor under the 'public function' test. The court reasoned that many private entities perform similar functions, and this test applies only when a private entity exercises powers traditionally and exclusively reserved to the state, such as holding elections or running a town. The association's powers do not meet this high standard. Finally, the court concluded that the Illinois statute prohibiting condo rules from impairing First Amendment rights does not convert the association into a state actor; it is merely a state-law limitation on a private entity's conduct.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the avenues for bringing federal constitutional claims against private homeowners' and condominium associations. By rejecting both the potential-enforcement theory and the public-function argument, the court reinforces a strict interpretation of the 'state action' requirement for § 1983 claims. The ruling effectively channels disputes over association rules into state courts, to be litigated under state property law, contract law, or specific state statutes, rather than under the U.S. Constitution. This solidifies the legal status of such associations as private actors, shielding them from direct federal constitutional scrutiny absent actual intervention by a state court.
