Mills v. Golden Nugget Atl. City, LLC - No. 19-19610, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156166 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2021)

Rule:

To assert a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person amendable to suit under § 1983 and acting under color of state law.

Facts:

The casino suspected plaintiff of being involved in a scam. It conducted regular surveillance, file the DICE report for what it considered to be suspicious activity, and speak with law enforcement. State officers arrested plaintiff. Eventually, the New Jersey Attorney General's office dismissed the charge against the plaintiff in the interests of justice. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff filed the instant suit against the casino. The casino argued that it was not a state actor subject to suit under § 1983. 

Issue:

Was the casino a state actor subject to suit under § 1983? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

In order to assert a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person amendable to suit under § 1983 and acting under color of state law. In this case, the court held that the casino was not a state actor; hence, it was not subject to a claim under § 1983. All that it did was conduct regular surveillance, file the DICE report for what it considered to be suspicious activity, and speak with law enforcement. A summons of the police by a business for a disturbance does not render that business a state actor absent a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the casino.