42 USC (United States Code) § 1983 provides for a private civil action to redress the deprivation under color of state law of a right, privilege or immunity secured to a plaintiff by the United States Constitution. “Every person who, under color of any statute…regulation… or usage of any State…subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…” 42 USC § 1983.

Public employees act “under color” of state law while acting in their official capacities or while exercising their responsibilities pursuant to state law. Private persons jointly engaged with state officials in acts prohibited under Section 1983 are acting under color of state law. The color of state law requirement under 42 USC § 1983 is satisfied by showing that the deprivation resulted from exercise of some right or privilege created by state law or by rule of conduct imposed by state law or by person for whom state is responsible, and that the party charged with deprivation is a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor either because he is a state official, because he has acted together with or has obtained significant aid from state officials, or because his conduct is otherwise chargeable to the state.

Showing that actions were “under color of state law” does not require that the challenged action be pursuant to state statute; rather, the question is whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged action, or whether the state has so far insinuated itself into position of interdependence that there is symbiotic relationship between the actor and the state such that challenged action can fairly be attributed to the state. When a person, by virtue of a public position under a state government, deprives another of any constitutional right, and that person acts in the name of the state and for the state and is clothed with the state’s powers, his or her act is that of the state. The element loosely termed as “state action” is highly amorphous and is generally determined on a case-by-case basis after analysis of facts involved. State action is generally found to exist when what is involved is the exercise of power possessed only because the wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state law.

As a corollary to the state action rule it is generally stated that to prove cause of action under 42 USC § 1983, one need not show that the constitutional or statutory infringement complained of is supported by state law, as long as there is some nexus between state involvement and the alleged deprivation. In determining whether a private person’s conduct falls within the proscription of 42 USCS § 1983, the issue is whether, under all of the facts and circumstances, his action fairly can be said to be that of state instrumentality acting under color of state law.

A private citizen, acting in concert with public officials, is acting under color of state law for purposes of 42 USC § 1983. Private individual conduct can constitute action under color of state law where the power possessed by the individual is possessed only because the individual is clothed with authority of state law. A private party may be held to be a state actor when the complained of conduct results from the state agent’s encouragement or command, where state and private actors jointly participate in depriving plaintiff of his rights, or where there is granting of benefits to the private actor by the state.