Uston v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18908, 448 F. Supp. 116 (1978)
Rule of Law:
Extensive state regulation of a private industry does not transform private conduct into state action for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the state has significantly promoted, participated in, or compelled the specific challenged activity.
Facts:
- Kenneth Uston, a known 'card counter,' entered the Flamingo Hilton Hotel casino on June 29, 1975.
- Uston began playing the game of '21' (blackjack) at a table.
- While playing, Uston was approached by two security guards.
- The guards requested that Uston leave the premises because he was a 'better than average' player.
- The guards escorted Uston to the hotel's entrance.
- At the entrance, the guards read Uston the Nevada trespass statute.
- Uston departed the premises as requested.
Procedural Posture:
- Uston filed a complaint in the United States District Court alleging federal civil rights violations and various state law torts.
- The defendants (Hilton Hotels Corp.) filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the case.
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 the extensive regulation of the gaming industry by the State of Nevada transform a private casino's exclusion of a card counter into 'state action' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Roger D. Foley
No, the mere fact that a private business is subject to heavy state regulation does not make its private decisions attributable to the state. The court reasoned that under the Supreme Court's precedents in Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis and Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., state action requires a showing that the government is significantly involved in or has promoted the specific activity being challenged. Here, Nevada regulates casinos, but it does not compel them to exclude card counters, nor does the state maintain a list of card counters to be barred. The decision to exclude Uston was a private business decision made by the casino. Consequently, there is no state action to support a § 1983 claim. Additionally, the court rejected the § 1985 conspiracy claim because 'better than average blackjack players' are not a protected class suffering from racial or invidiously discriminatory animus. Finally, the court dismissed the state law claims because the parties lacked complete diversity; Uston is a California citizen and the defendant, Hilton Hotels, has its principal place of business in California.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to convert private conduct into state action under the 'public function' or 'nexus' theories. By applying the Jackson standard to the heavily regulated gaming industry, the court clarified that even where a state issues licenses and strictly controls an industry, private businesses retain the right to exclude patrons without triggering constitutional due process or equal protection requirements, provided the state does not affirmatively mandate that exclusion. This limits the scope of federal civil rights litigation against private entities, ensuring that § 1983 remains a remedy for government conduct rather than private grievances.
Unlock the full brief for Uston v. Hilton Hotels Corp.