Opinion ID: 768122
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Filing of the Andrews action.

Text: 47 DeGrassi claims that the Andrewses and Council members conspired to file the slander action in retaliation for her opposition to the designation of the Andrewses' building as an historic landmark. Under S 1983, a claim may lie against a private party who is a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting `under color' of law for purposes of S 1983 actions. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980). However, a bare allegation of such joint action will not overcome a motion to dismiss; the plaintiff must allege facts tending to show that [the Andrewses] acted `under color of state law or authority.'  Sykes v. State of Cal. (Dep't of Motor Vehicles), 497 F.2d 197, 202 (9th Cir. 1974). 48 Here, DeGrassi alleges that Cook had threatened to file lawsuits against her on other, unrelated occasions. She also claims that the City defendants knew of the lawsuit before she did. She concludes that Cook's threats became a reality upon the filing of the Andrews action. These conclusory allegations do not set forth facts supporting a claim that the Andrewses acted under color of law. And because she alleges no facts indicating that the City defendants had any involvement in the Andrewses' decision to file that action, her allegations do not support a claim that the filing of the action is attributable to the City defendants. See Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) ([A] State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State.). 49