In Re Jackson Lockdown/MCO Cases
568 F. Supp. 869, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20386 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private party acts "under color of state law" for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim when it conspires with state officials who use their state-conferred authority to commit unconstitutional acts, even if those acts are contrary to state law or policy. The two-part test from Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., requiring action pursuant to official state policy, does not apply when state action is based on the active, intentional abuse of authority by a state official.
Facts:
- The Michigan Corrections Organization (MCO), a union for prison guards, planned to take illegal action at the State Prison of Southern Michigan (SPSM).
- On May 21, 1981, MCO President Gerald Fryt informed Warden Barry Mintzes that an unauthorized job action would take place.
- On the morning of May 22, 1981, Fryt and other MCO officers informed a deputy warden they would be locking down the prison at 10:00 a.m.
- MCO officers used telephones in the warden's office to call in off-duty members to assist with the unauthorized lockdown.
- At 10:00 a.m., MCO-member guards throughout the prison refused to obey their superiors' orders and began the lockdown, preventing prisoners from leaving their cells and barring visitors.
- Fryt admitted to Warden Mintzes that MCO had taken over administrative control of the institution and acknowledged the associated risk of a prisoner riot.
- A riot broke out shortly after noon, during which inmate McDonald and others were injured.
- After the riot began, MCO leadership returned control of the prison to the administration.
Procedural Posture:
- Inmate McDonald, along with other prisoners, filed pro per complaints against the Michigan Corrections Organization (MCO), its president, the prison warden, and the director of the state's Department of Corrections.
- Some cases were filed initially in federal court, while others were filed in state court and removed by MCO to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The various pro per actions were consolidated for pretrial purposes by the district court.
- Plaintiffs, now with appointed counsel, filed amended complaints containing essentially identical allegations.
- The MCO defendants and the state defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the amended complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
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 entity, such as a prison guards' union (MCO), act "under color of state law" for the purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim when it allegedly conspires with on-duty state prison guards to take administrative control of a prison, thereby depriving inmates of their constitutional rights, even though the guards' actions are contrary to official state policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Cohn, District Judge
Yes, a private entity acts under color of state law when it conspires with state actors who are abusing their state-conferred authority. The court held that a private party who joins in a conspiracy with state actors can be liable under § 1983. MCO's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. required the state actors' conduct to be pursuant to official state policy was rejected. The court reasoned that Lugar's two-part test was limited to the specific context of prejudgment attachment and did not overrule the "abuse of authority" doctrine from Monroe v. Pape or the conspiracy liability rule from Adickes v. Kress & Co. In this case, the prison guards' acts, although contrary to state law, were possible only because of the authority conferred on them by the state. By conspiring with these guards, MCO was able to "put the weight of the state behind their private decision," thereby satisfying the state action requirement for a § 1983 claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the state action doctrine for private actors in § 1983 conspiracy cases following the Supreme Court's ruling in Lugar. It establishes that Lugar's more stringent two-part test is context-specific and does not apply to situations where private parties conspire with state officials who are actively abusing their state-conferred authority. The case reaffirms that private actors can be held liable for joining with state officials in unconstitutional conduct, even when those officials act in violation of state policy. This provides a crucial pathway for plaintiffs to hold private entities accountable when they leverage the power of rogue state employees to violate constitutional rights.
