Labor & Employment Law

A subpoena issued by an attorney does not automatically implicate ?state action? for the purposes of jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983

A subpoena issued by an attorney does not automatically implicate ?state action? for the purposes of jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983

Broadley v Hardman, US Court of Appeals, First Circuit, No. 08-1342

Edmund F. Broadley, III, sued William A. Hardman, III, alleging that Hardman interfered with his legal representation and abuse of the deposition process in violation of 42 USC §1983.

The First Circuit said that to set forth a § 1983 claim, one must allege "interference with a constitutionally-protected right" by someone "acting under color of state law."

Broadley argued that he had established that Hardman acted under color of state law as Hardman, an attorney, had ?issued a subpoena in the name of the state of Rhode Island commanding [Broadly] to appear at a pretrial deposition.

The Circuit Court said that it agreed with the district court that Hardman's use of this procedural device did not transform him into a state actor, ?at least absent any allegation that state officials were used to enforce the process.?

Further, said the court, the fact that Hardman ?signed and issued the subpoena in his capacity as a notary public does not call for a different result.? Also, the court noted, ?By itself, the issuance of a subpoena, whether by a court clerk or a notary public, lacks "consequences significant enough" to amount to state action.?

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on December 15, 2008 (boomark / email).