Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawState Action42 U.S.C. § 1983Due ProcessPrejudgment Attachmentstate actionunder color of state law§ 1983

Facts

Lugar, who operated a truckstop in Virginia, owed money to Edmondson Oil. Edmondson sued and, pursuant to Virginia's prejudgment attachment statute, filed an ex parte petition alleging belief that Lugar might dispose of property to defeat creditors; a state court clerk issued a writ, and the county sheriff executed it, sequestering Lugar's property while leaving it in his possession. Thirty-four days later, a state trial judge dismissed the attachment because Edmondson failed to establish the statutory grounds alleged. Lugar then brought a § 1983 action claiming that respondents acted jointly with the State to deprive him of property without due process.

Issue

Whether a private creditor who invokes a state prejudgment attachment procedure and obtains the assistance of state officials acts under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. Also, whether that is true when the claim is only that the creditor misused the statute rather than that the statute itself is constitutionally defective.

Rule

Conduct is attributable to the State for § 1983/Fourteenth Amendment purposes when two elements are met: (1) the deprivation is caused by the exercise of a right or privilege created by the State, by a state-imposed rule of conduct, or by a person for whom the State is responsible; and (2) the party charged with the deprivation is a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor, including one who has acted together with or obtained significant aid from state officials. In the prejudgment attachment context, a private party's joint participation with state officials in seizing property under a state-created procedure is sufficient to constitute state action and action under color of state law, but private misuse of a state statute is not.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Prairie Ledger Supply sued Nina Velez for an unpaid invoice. Using an Ohio prejudgment garnishment statute, Prairie filed an ex parte application, a court clerk issued a writ, and the county sheriff froze Nina's business checking account before any hearing. Nina brings a § 1983 action against Prairie alleging the statute itself lacks adequate due process protections.

Did Prairie act under color of state law for purposes of Nina's § 1983 claim?

Explanation. A private party acts under color of state law in this prejudgment seizure context when the deprivation is caused by a state-created procedure and the private party jointly participates with state officials or obtains significant aid from them. Here Prairie used a state-created garnishment process, the clerk issued the writ, and the sheriff executed it. Under the majority's rule, that is sufficient joint participation for a § 1983 challenge to the constitutionality of the procedure itself.