United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted April 13, 2017*

Decided April 14, 2017 

Before 

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge 

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 16-3381 

JOSEPH REINWAND, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NATIONAL ELECTRICAL 

BENEFIT FUND, and LAWRENCE J. 

BRADLEY, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 14-cv-845-bbc 

Barbara B. Crabb, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Joseph Reinwand, formerly an electrical worker, has sued the pension plan of his 

previous employer and its administrator. He contends that the plan’s decision to deny 

his claim for disability benefits violated his “constitutional rights,” as enforceable under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court permitted him to proceed under the Employee 

Retirement Security Income Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), rather than § 1983, granted 

him summary judgment, and remanded his claim to the administrator. Dissatisfied with 

 

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is 

frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 16-3381 Page 2 

his victory, Reinwand appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 claim. Because the defendants 

are not state actors, we affirm. 

For over a decade Reinwand received disability benefits from the National 

Electrical Benefit Fund. The Fund is a multi-employer pension plan organized under the 

Taft-Hartley Act, see 29 U.S.C. § 186(c), using employer contributions to provide benefits 

for workers in the electrical industry. Reinwand qualified for and received a pension 

because he was entitled to federal disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder. 

But in 2012 he stopped receiving those federal benefits, and the Fund likewise 

terminated Reinwand’s pension. Reinwand later applied to have the Fund reinstate his 

pension benefits, but the administrator denied his claim without an explanation. 

The district court permitted Reinwand to proceed under ERISA, but not under 

§ 1983. The defendants conceded and the court concluded that, by denying his pension 

claim without an explanation, the Fund violated Reinwand’s statutory right to a “full 

and fair review” of his pension claim, see 29 U.S.C. § 1133. The court remanded that 

claim to the administrator. Reinwand moved to amend the judgment to award him 

damages for violation of his “constitutional rights,” but the court denied that request. 

Reinwand appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 claim, but that claim is frivolous. 

Only “state actors” can be liable under § 1983. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 

526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999); Babchuk v. Ind. Univ. Health, Inc., 809 F.3d 966, 968, 970–71 (7th Cir. 

2016). The Fund is organized under federal law as a private entity, see 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 1002(2)(A), 1102. Conduct of private actors is not state action unless it “may be fairly 

treated as that of the State itself.” Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 

531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001) (quoting and citing Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 

351(1974)); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2009). But 

Reinwand does not contend that the Fund or its administrator acted for or in concert 

with the state when the Fund denied his pension claim. See Land v. Chi. Truck Drivers 

Union, 25 F.3d 509, 517 (7th Cir. 1994) (regarding as frivolous a claim that private fund 

was acting on behalf of state when it operated pursuant to ERISA). With state action 

absent, the district court properly dismissed the § 1983 claim.

AFFIRMED.