- Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Rights § 1983
- Date Filed: 09-19-2022
- Case #: 20-35878
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Paez, J., for the Court; Nguyen, J.; & Tunheim, D.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of claims arising from union dues paycheck deductions from her State employer. Plaintiff assigned error to the determination that her claims lacked jurisdiction and failed to allege a State action. Plaintiff argued that her claims had standing because she had a fear of future harm of having unlawful paycheck deductions since deductions had previously been applied to her paycheck The Court reasoned Plaintiff’s claims lacked standing because they were too speculative and relied on a series of unsupported inferences, including that she would come out of retirement. Accordingly, the Court found Plaintiff did not have jurisdiction. Plaintiff also argued that because Defendant was given a privilege created by the State to alert State employers of union dues deductions, therefore Defendant was a "state actor." In order to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant “deprived [the plaintiff] of a right secured by the Constitution” and “acted under color of state law.” Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 1989 (citation omitted). The Court analyzed SIEU's role under joint action and reasoned that because Defendant (SIEU) has not been authorized to make deductions to dues, they cannot be considered a "state actor." Defendant also failed the public function test because certifying union members is not a “traditional and exclusive government” task. Accordingly, the Court held that Defendant was not a state actor and therefore the claim did not allege a state action. Affirmed.