Michael Tann v. Ludwikoski

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998325209-3] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00612-BEL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998405930] [10-1380]

Michael Tann v. Ludwikoski

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1380 Document: 9

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1380 MICHAEL EUGENE TANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LUDWIKOSKI; GEORGE MATEJA, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00612-BEL) Submitted: August 2, 2010 Decided: August 18, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Eugene Tann, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1380 Document: 9

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Michael Eugene Tann appeals the district court's order summarily dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to state a claim. In his complaint, Tann, a student at

Baltimore County Community College, alleged that his professor, David Ludwikoski, treated him differently than white students regarding certain classroom and course policies. Tann alleged that Ludwikoski maintained Specifically, classroom

strict

policies and required students to sign a contract acknowledging these policies, but exceptions were made for white students

regarding late class and homework assignments, while Tann was not given similar accommodations. In addition, Tann stated that

Ludwikoski gave a white student points for an incorrect answer, but refused to give Tann points for the same answer. Tann stated that George Mateja, the Assistant Dean Finally, for him the by

College's

Science

Department,

discriminated

against

reinforcing and upholding Ludwikoski's allegedly discriminatory decisions. The district court found that neither Ludwikoski nor Mateja were state to actors and their It conduct was not fairly the

attributable

the

State.

accordingly

dismissed

complaint on this ground without requiring a responsive pleading from the defendants. We vacate the district court's order and

remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. 2

Case: 10-1380 Document: 9

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

Page: 3

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege that defendant violated "a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States," and that the deprivation of that right "was committed by a person acting

under color of state law." (1988).

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49

There is no distinction between state action and action Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S.

under color of state law.

922, 930 (1982); United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794 n.7 (1966). One acts under color of state law when he has exercised

power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law." "[S]tate United States v. is Classic, generally 313 U.S. 299, to 326 (1941). the

employment

sufficient

render

defendant a state actor." West, 487 U.S. at 50.

Lugar, 457 U.S. at 936 n.18; see

We conclude that Ludwikoski and Mateja, as employees of a state public educational institution created by state law, are state actors. We also conclude that the district court's

application of the Jackson test to determine whether Ludwikoski and Mateja acted under color of state law was inappropriate in the context of a public college setting. See Chalfant v.

Wilmington Inst., 574 F.2d 739, 745 (3d Cir. 1978) ("We have

Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974). 3

Case: 10-1380 Document: 9

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

Page: 4

expressly rejected the application of the Jackson test, which was enunciated within the context of a private enterprise

electric utility, to the analysis of state action in a public library, a university, or any other public educational

institution."). Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. We deny Tann's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

4