Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33466994/Syblaski-v-Indep-Group-Ome-Living-Prog-Inc-Appeal
Timestamp: 2014-04-18 01:10:25
Document Index: 640437855

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 10801', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

Syblaski v. Indep Group Ome Living Prog Inc Appeal
P. 1Syblaski v. Indep Group Ome Living Prog Inc AppealSyblaski v. Indep Group Ome Living Prog Inc AppealRatings: (0)|Views: 451|Likes: 3Published by Thalia Sanderslandmark case: family law, appeal of the plaintifflandmark case: family law, appeal of the plaintiffMore info:Categories:Business/Law, TechnologyPublished by: Thalia Sanders on Jun 23, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33466994/Syblaski-v-Indep-Group-Ome-Living-Prog-Inc-Appeal06/23/2010pdftextoriginal 1
07-2244-cv Sybalski v. Independent Group Home Living Program
August Term, 2008(Argued: October 8, 2008Decided: October 15, 2008)Docket No. 07-2244-cv M
YBALSKI
Individually and as Legal Guardians of the Person and Property of Paul Sybalski, II,
Plaintiffs-Appellants , v.I
W ALTER S
OMBARDI
ERRICK ,
PRUILL
Defendants-Appellees .Before: N
ARKER ,
Circuit Judges . Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (John Gleeson,
Judge ), dismissing plaintiffs’ section 1983 action because of plaintiffs’ failure toallege state action. Plaintiffs alleged that a private group home facility and its employees restrictedplaintiffs’ ability to communicate with and visit their son, a resident of the facility. We agree with theDistrict Court that the complaint does not adequately allege state action. Affirmed. A
W OLIN
, Wolin & Wolin, Jericho, NY,
for Plaintiffs- Appellants.
, Cooper, Sapir & Cohen, P.C., Melville, NY,
:Marilyn and Paul Sybalski appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for theEastern District of New York (John Gleeson,
Judge ), dismissing their civil rights action against thecorporate owner of a group home for mentally disabled adults and five employees of that corporateentity.
See Sybalski v. Independent Group Home Living Program, Inc.
, No. 06 CV 4899, 2007 WL 1202864(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2007). On appeal, the Sybalskis challenge the District Court’s dismissal of theirclaims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that their complaint adequately pleaded stateaction. Because we agree with the District Court that defendants’ alleged conduct does not constitutestate action, we deny the appeal.
This action arises from a disagreement between the Sybalskis and defendants over the carereceived by the Sybalskis’ son at a group home for adults with mental disabilities. The Sybalskis allegethat they made numerous “complaints . . . about the care, protection and services” received by theirson at the group home, Compl. ¶ 36, and defendants, in response, “issued letters seeking to punish andintimidate plaintiffs and impose illegal and unlawful restrictions on plaintiffs[’] right to visit andcommunicate with their son,”
id . ¶ 62. Defendants’ conduct, according to the Sybalskis, violated theFirst Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801-51, (“PAIMI”), and variousprovisions of New York state law. Defendants moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,and the District Court granted that motion on April 24, 2007. The District Court held that theSybalskis’ constitutional claims—brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983—failed because defendants’alleged conduct could not be attributed to the state and was therefore not actionable under section
The Sybalskis do not challenge on appeal the dismissal of their PAIMI claims or the District Court’s decision
to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims.
Sybalski , 2007 WL 1202864 , at *5. The District Court dismissed the PAIMI claim on theground that the statute “creates no privately enforceable federal rights,”
at *6 n.6, and declined toexercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims,
at *6. Judgment for defendants wasentered on April 30, 2007, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, the Sybalskis challenge the District Court’s determination that they failed adequately to plead state action in support of their section 1983 claims. Pursuant to section 1983, anyone acting 1
“under color of any [state] statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,” who causes a United Statescitizen to be deprived “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 forredress.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he purpose of § 1983 is to deterstate actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteedrights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails.”
Wyatt v. Cole , 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992). Accordingly, we have held that “[a] plaintiff pressing a claim of violation of his constitutional rightsunder § 1983 is thus required to show state action.”
Tancredi v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
, 316 F.3d 308, 312(2d Cir. 2003).For the purposes of section 1983, the actions of a nominally private entity are attributable tothe state when: (1) the entity acts pursuant to the “coercive power” of the state or is “controlled” by the state (“the compulsion test”); (2) when the state provides “significant encouragement” to the entity,the entity is a “willful participant in joint activity with the [s]tate,” or the entity’s functions are“entwined” with state policies (“the joint action test” or “close nexus test”); or (3) when the entity “has
Recommended 2_06-Cv-04899-38-EDNY Sybalski and Ind Group Home Lving
Kletschka v. Driver 411 F.2d 436
Copy of Ashcroft v. Iqbal. 129 S.ct. 1937
Cases Citing Inkel v. Connecticut Department of Children ...
More From This User Washington v. Texas 388 U.S. 14-87 S.ct. 1920
Recommended2_06-Cv-04899-38-EDNY Sybalski and In...Thalia Sandersthis is a great case that never made it anywhere because the plaintiff could ...Kletschka v. Driver 411 F.2d 436Thalia Sanderslandmark case: 1st and 14th AmendmentJames Et Al v. Freder Cty Pub Sch. 44...Thalia SandersMother of elementary school student who was arrested for disrupting school ac...Griswold v. ConnecticutThalia SandersDefendants were convicted of violating the Connecticut birth control law. The...D27347 Sybalski and Ind Group HomeThalia Sandersdecision and order against plaintiff for failing to connect state nexus under...Stanley v. Georgia 394 U.S. 557 1969Thalia Sanderslandmark case: 1st amendment right reading informationCopy of Ashcroft v. Iqbal. 129 S.ct. ...Thalia SandersHoldings: The Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that: (1) Second Circuit h...PGCPS - Everhart Complaint Filed May ...Thalia SandersCases Citing Inkel v. Connecticut Dep...Thalia Sanderscases citing inkel v. Feldman which was about a family bring a claim under th...Bell at Corp v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544,...Thalia Sandersabrogation, civil lawPrevious|NextPage 1 of 3