Opinion ID: 1426237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The District Court Properly Dismissed the Student Government Defendants

Text: Finally, plaintiffs challenge the district court's decision to grant the motion of the Student Government Defendants to dismiss the claims against them because they were not state actors. We affirm the district court's dismissal of these defendants. A private individual may be treated as a state actor for purposes of a constitutional challenge to his conduct only if his actions are `fairly attributable to the state.' Leeds, 85 F.3d at 54 (quoting Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982)). Extensive regulation and public funding, either alone or taken together, will not transform a private actor into a state actor; instead, the state must have exerted its coercive power over, or provided significant encouragement to, the defendant before the latter will be deemed a state actor. Id.; see also San Francisco Arts & Ath. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 547, 107 S.Ct. 2971, 97 L.Ed.2d 427 (1987). A private entity does not become a state actor merely because its conduct is authorized by a state law, where its conduct is not compelled by the state. Loce v. Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Pshp., 191 F.3d 256, 266 (2d Cir.1999) (emphasis added). Here, plaintiffs have made no allegations that would permit the inference that the school authorities coerced or encouraged Student Government Publications Commissioner Schnetzer to impound the May 1997 issue, or coerced or encouraged the other Student Government Defendants to support his decision. In fact, according to the plaintiffs, when the school administrators learned of Schnetzer's actions, they urged him and the rest of the members of the Student Senate to rescind the impoundment. When the Student Government Defendants refused to do so, President Springer overruled their decision. [16] Accordingly, it cannot be said that the school officials even acquiesced to the Student Government Defendants' actions, keeping in mind that such acquiescence would still be insufficient to demonstrate that the Student Government Defendants were state actors. See San Francisco Arts & Ath., 483 U.S. at 547, 107 S.Ct. 2971. Despite these facts, the plaintiffs insist that the Student Government Defendants were state actors because the Student Senate's existence and its power to regulate student organizations, including the College Voice, derive from the CUNY Bylaws and CSI Governance Plan. But, assuming that state law or regulations gave the Student Government Defendants the power to act as they did, these laws and regulations certainly did not require the Defendants to do so. As a result, the state authorization was insufficient to establish that the Student Government Defendants were state actors in the circumstances presented here. See Loce, 191 F.3d at 266. We therefore find that the district court correctly concluded that, in the circumstances presented in this case, the Student Government Defendants were not state actors and properly dismissed them as defendants.