Opinion ID: 821034
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Requirement of Joint Action

Text: In order to be held liable under § 1983, the party committing the alleged constitutional violation must be a state actor or must be “jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action.” Lee v. Town of Estes Park, 820 F.2d 1112, 1114 (10th -7- Cir. 1987); see also Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Sys., Inc., 195 F.3d 584, 595-96 (10th Cir. 1999). The district court concluded that the Chimeras failed to allege facts showing an agreement or joint action between the Sequoyah County defendants and Ms. Sutterfield. We agree with that ruling. Although the Chimeras assert that the record sufficiently establishes that Ms. Sutterfield was a willing participant in a joint action, they do not point to any specific evidence in the record to support their position. Instead, the Chimeras appear to argue that Ms. Sutterfield should be held liable because she was the person who requested assistance from the Sequoyah County Sheriff’s Department—an action that led to the alleged illegal entry, false arrest, and use of excessive force by Deputies Thomas, Oliver, and Davis. But “the mere furnishing of information to police officers who take action thereon does not constitute joint action under color of state law which renders a private actor liable under § 1983.” Lee, 820 F.2d at 1115. The district court properly gave summary judgment to Ms. Sutterfield.6