Opinion ID: 2995134
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Setting the Fire

Text: Mr. Honaker first contends that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Mr. Smith played a role in setting fire to his house. As we have noted, Mr. Honaker’s claim in this regard was filed under Section 1983. As a result, he must demonstrate not only that Mr. Smith was in fact involved in setting the fire, but also that Mr. Smith did so under color of state law and deprived Mr. Honaker of a federally guaranteed right. See 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983; see also Pickrel v. City of Springfield, 45 F.3d 1115, 1118 (7th Cir. 1995); Hughes v. Meyer, 880 F.2d 967, 971 (7th Cir. 1989) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988)). We have emphasized that [n]ot every action by a state official or employee is to be deemed as occurring ’under color’ of state law. Hughes, 880 F.2d at 971. Action is taken under color of state law when it involves a misuse of power, ’possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.’ Walker v. Taylorville Corr. Ctr., 129 F.3d 410, 413 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoting West, 487 U.S. at 49); see also Hughes, 880 F.2d at 971. As a result, acts by a state officer are not made under color of state law unless they are related in some way to the performance of the duties of the state office. See Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1516 (7th Cir. 1990); Briscoe v. LaHue, 663 F.2d 713, 721 n.4 (7th Cir. 1981). In Hughes v. Meyer, 880 F.2d 967, 972 (7th Cir. 1989), for example, we determined that a warden of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources did not act under color of state law when he provided local sheriffs with information regarding an alleged criminal act undertaken by the defendants. The warden’s authority as an official who en forced the state’s game laws did not extend to the general enforcement of state law. See id. Thus, when he provided information regarding the alleged criminal act, he was not doing so by virtue of the authority granted to him by his state employment. See id. In contrast, in Pickrel v. City of Springfield, 45 F.3d 1115, 1116-18 (7th Cir. 1995), we held, in the context of reviewing a motion for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), that an off-duty police officer could have been acting under color of state law when he arrested the plaintiff after an altercation between the two at a restaurant. We made this determinationbecause the officer, although off-duty, was attired in his police uniform which displayed his badge, was wearing his gun and had his marked squad car parked just outside the restaurant. See id. at 1118. We determined that these facts demonstrated that the officer was acting while displaying signs of state authority and advertising the presence of a state actor to those around him. See id. But see Latuszkin v. City of Chicago, 250 F.3d 502, 505-06 (7th Cir. 2001) (off-duty police officer had not acted under color of state law where disputed action occurred while officer was driving his own car outside of his police jurisdiction and where there was no allegation that [the officer] was engaged in police activity, that he displayed any police power, or that he possessed any indicia of his office at the time of the accident). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that, on this record, any action taken by Mr. Smith to cause Mr. Honaker’s house to burn to the ground was not effectuated under color of state law. Mr. Honaker does not explain how such an act was related to any official duty or activity of Mr. Smith as Mayor of Lovington or as its Fire Chief./5 Moreover, Mr. Honaker makes no substantive contention that Mr. Smith used the cloak of his authority as mayor or fire chief or any indicia of his office to set such a fire. In one of his briefs, Mr. Honaker appears to suggest that Mr. Smith may have paid Thomas to set the fire. See Appellant’s Reply Br. at 4. This allegation is not well-formed and, more importantly, Mr. Honaker again does not explain how such an act would be related in any way to the performance of Mr. Smith’s duties as a state officer./6 Under these circum-stances, we agree with the district court that there was no basis upon which a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Smith violated Section 1983 by causing Mr. Honaker’s house to be set afire.