Opinion ID: 4520638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mancini

Text: Hoit challenges the dismissal of his § 1983 claim against Mancini. 5 Although Mancini was a CDTA foreman, it is undisputed that he was not Hoit’s supervisor. 6 There is no evidence that Mancini in any way used his authority as a foreman to facilitate his recording of the Incident. Accordingly, Hoit has provided no basis for a finding that Mancini acted under color of state law. See Patterson, 375 F.3d at 230 (“[M]ere employment by the state does not mean that the employee’s every 5 Hoit sought to file a second amended complaint solely to add a NYSHRL claim against Mancini for aiding and abetting Baez’s misconduct. The District Court denied Hoit’s motion to amend, reasoning that a claim against Mancini for aider-and-abettor liability would be futile because the court had already dismissed the NYSHRL claim against the CDTA. Hoit challenges that ruling. We review it for abuse of discretion. Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 2010). Because there is no primary violation of the NYSHRL for Mancini to have aided or abetted, as discussed above, we agree with the District Court that the proposed amendment would be futile. 6 Nor was Mancini Clanton’s supervisor. 13 act can properly be characterized as state action.”).