jarvis v. village gun shop, inc., 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Jarvis v. Village Gun Shop, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)

1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 2249

RUSSELL J ARVI S, J AMES J ARVI S, ROBERT CRAMPTON, andCOMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT, I NC. ,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

v.

VI LLAGE GUN SHOP, I NC. , D/ B/ A VI LLAGE VAULT,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge][ Hon. Leo T. Sor oki n, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Bar r on, Sel ya and Li pez,Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d D. J ensen, wi t h whom Davi d J ensen PLLC, Pat r i ck M.Gr oul x, and Gr ol l man, LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.

Mar k I . Zar r ow, wi t h whom Li an, Zar r ow was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Davi d R. Marks, Assi st ant At t orney Gener al , wi t h whom Maur aHeal ey, At t orney Gener al , was on br i ef , f or Commonweal t h of

Massachuset t s and Execut i ve Of f i ce of Publ i c Saf et y and Secur i t y,ami ci cur i ae.

Oct ober 30, 2015


2/25

- 2 -

SELYA, Circuit Judge. Ther e ar e ci r cumst ances i n whi ch

t he act i ons of pr i vat e par t i es become so ent angl ed wi t h t he act i ons

of publ i c ent i t i es t hat t he f or mer may become l i abl e as st at e

act or s under 42 U. S. C. 1983. But t he l i ne t hat separ at es pr i vat e

acti on f r om st at e acti on i s somet i mes di f f i cul t t o pl ot . Thi s

case, whi ch i nvol ves t he act i ons of a pr i vat el y owned st or age

f aci l i t y wi t h r espect t o f i r ear ms conf i scat ed by Massachuset t s

pol i ce of f i cers, i l l ustr at es t he poi nt .

The di st r i ct cour t , r ul i ng at t he summar y j udgment

st age, concl uded t hat t he st orage f aci l i t y t hat was sued her e was

not a st ate act or and, accor di ngl y, ent er ed summary j udgment i n

i t s f avor . Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on, we af f i r m.

I. THE STATUTORY SCHEME

We begi n our odyssey wi t h a sket ch of t he key el ement s

of t he Massachuset t s st at ut or y scheme f or f i r ear ms owner shi p.

I n Massachuset t s, an i ndi vi dual who wi shes t o own or

possess a f i r ear mi n hi s r esi dence or pl ace of busi ness must obt ai n

a Fi r ear ms I dent i f i cat i on ( FI D) card. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

140, 129B, 129C; Com. v. Gouse, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785 n. 14 ( Mass.

2012) . Under cer t ai n def i ned ci r cumst ances, an FI D card may be

deni ed, suspended, or r evoked. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140,

129B, 131( d) , ( f ) , ( i ) . Per t i nent l y, Massachuset t s l aw pr ovi des

t hat i f a cour t i ssues an abuse pr event i on or der agai nst a per son

who pr esent s " a subst ant i al l i kel i hood of i mmedi at e danger of


3/25

- 3 -

abuse, " t he cour t must or der t hat per son t o sur r ender al l of hi s

f i r ear ms and hi s FI D car d ( as wel l as any ot her f i r ear ms l i cense) .

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209A, 3B. One who has sur r ender ed hi s

f i r earms pur suant t o an abuse pr event i on order yet wi shes t o

chal l enge t he suspensi on or r evocat i on of hi s FI D car d or l i cense,

may pet i t i on t he or der i ng cour t f or r el i ef and a hear i ng must be

hel d wi t hi n 10 days. See i d.

An FI D car d wi l l expi r e i f t he hol der does not r enew i t

wi t hi n t he t i me f i xed by l aw. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140,

129B( 9) . I f an FI D car d expi r es, l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s ar e

aut hor i zed t o conf i scate bot h t he expi r ed car d and any f i r ear ms

possessed by t he f ormer car dhol der . See i d. 129B( 12) . The

hol der may at any t i me t ake st eps t o renew hi s car d and r ecl ai m

hi s pr oper t y.

The sur r ender of f i r earms pur suant t o t hi s st at ut or y

scheme does not t er mi nate a gun owner ' s owner shi p r i ght s. Af t er

such a sur r ender has occurr ed, t he gun owner may ar r ange f or t he

f i r ear ms t o be t r ansf er r ed or sol d t o any per son wi t h a val i d FI D

car d or ot her f i r ear ms l i cense wi t hi n one year af t er t he dat e of

sur r ender . See i d. 129D. The pol i ce cannot di spose of t he

conf i scat ed f i r ear ms f or one year , but t hey ar e not r equi r ed t o

mai nt ai n cust ody of t he f i r ear ms f or t hat l engt h of t i me. Rat her ,

t he pol i ce "may t r ansf er possessi on of such weapon[ s] f or st or age

pur poses t o a f eder al l y and st at e l i censed deal er of such weapons


4/25

- 4 -

and ammuni t i on who operat es a bonded warehouse . . . t hat i s

equi pped wi t h a saf e f or t he secur e st or age of f i r ear ms . . . . "

I d. The st atut ory scheme t her ef ore put s gun owner s on const r uct i ve

not i ce t hat i f t hey do not t ake act i on wi t h r espect t o t hei r

conf i scat ed f i r ear ms, t he pol i ce have a r i ght t o t r ansf er t hose

f i r ear ms f or st or age. 1

Once a l i censed deal er t akes possessi on of conf i scated

f i r ear ms and any associ at ed pr oper t y, t he deal er must i nspect t he

f i r ear ms, f ur ni sh t he owner wi t h a det ai l ed i nvent or y, and st or e

t he i t ems as speci f i ed by t he st at ut e. The gun owner becomes

l i abl e f or al l " r easonabl e st or age char ges, " but he may at any

t i me avoi d t he cont i nui ng accrual of such char ges by sel l i ng or

t r ansf er r i ng t he f i r ear ms t o a per son wi t h a val i d FI D car d or

ot her f i r ear ms l i cense. I d. I f t he owner does not ei t her r ecl ai m

t he conf i scat ed f i r ear ms or ar r ange f or a per mi t t ed t r ansf er of

t hem and t hen f ai l s t o pay t he accumul ated st or age char ges f or a

per i od of no l ess t han 90 days, t he deal er i s aut hor i zed t o auct i on

t he pr oper t y i n or der t o r ecoup i t s f ees. See i d. So, t oo, i f

one year has el apsed and t he owner st i l l has not ei t her r ecl ai med

1 Whi l e we need not and do not r each t he due pr ocessi ssue, i t i s wel l - est abl i shed t hat such st at ut or y not i ce i ssuf f i ci ent t o put gun owner s on not i ce of t he possi bi l i t y t hatt hei r guns may be t r ansf er r ed. See, e. g. , Ci t y of W. Covi na v.Per ki ns, 525 U. S. 234, 241 ( 1999) ; Gun Owner s' Act i on League, I nc.v. Swi f t , 284 F. 3d 198, 207 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ; Uni t ed St at es v.DeBar t ol o, 482 F. 2d 312, 316 ( 1st Ci r . 1973) .


5/25

- 5 -

or t r ansf er r ed hi s conf i scat ed pr oper t y, t he deal er may sel l t he

pr oper t y at publ i c auct i on and def r ay al l accumul at ed st or age

char ges out of t he pr oceeds. See i d. Any surpl us pr oceeds wi l l

be remi t t ed t o t he owner . 2 See i d.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Wi t h t hi s f oundat i on i n pl ace, we t ur n t o the case at

hand. Ther e ar e t hr ee gr oups of pl ai nt i f f s her e: we r ehear se t hei r

f act s and ci r cumst ances separ at el y.

A. James and Russell Jarvis.

Pl ai nt i f f J ames J ar vi s i s a gun owner r esi di ng i n

Cheshi r e, Massachuset t s. I n t he ear l y mor ni ng hour s of J ul y 9,

2010, Massachuset t s St at e Pol i ce t r ooper s ar r est ed hi m f or

domest i c assaul t and bat t er y. Hi s wi f e pr oceeded t o obt ai n an ex

part e t emporary abuse pr otect i on order . Based on t hi s or der and

i n pur suance of st ate l aw, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209A, 3B, t he

st at e pol i ce conf i scated al l f i r ear ms and ammuni t i on f ound i n J ames

J ar vi s' s home. The conf i scat ed proper t y i ncl uded f i r earms owned

by not onl y J ames J ar vi s hi msel f but al so hi s son ( J ames J ar vi s,

J r . ) and hi s f at her ( Russel l J ar vi s) .

2 A si mi l ar r egi me i s i n ef f ect f or cases i n whi ch t he pol i cechoose t o ret ai n cust ody of t he conf i scat ed pr oper t y rat her t hant r ansf er r i ng i t t o an aut hor i zed st or age f aci l i t y. See Mass. Gen.Laws ch. 140, 129D. I f t he pol i ce sel l t he pr oper t y at publ i cauct i on, t he pr oceeds ar e r emi t t ed t o t he st at e t r easur er . I d.


6/25

- 6 -

That same mor ni ng, J ames J ar vi s and hi s wi f e appeared i n

cour t . A st at e j udge ext ended t he pr ot ect i on or der unt i l August

9, 2010, and i t was t her eaf t er ext ended t o August 2, 2011.

J ames J ar vi s moved i nt o hi s parents' r esi dence i n Adams,

Massachuset t s, where he r emai ned f or t wo years. As l ong as t he

or der of pr ot ecti on was st i l l vel i vol ant , t he st at e pol i ce coul d

not l awf ul l y r et ur n hi s f i r ear ms t o hi m. Mor eover , hi s pr esence

i n hi s par ent s' home i nhi bi t ed t he abi l i t y of t he pol i ce t o r et ur n

Russel l J ar vi s' s f i r ear ms ( and at any r at e, Russel l J ar vi s di d not

hi msel f possess a val i d FI D car d or ot her f i r ear ms l i cense at t hat

t i me) .

On August 11, 2010 over a mont h af t er t he f i r ear ms had

been t aken f r omJ ames J arvi s' s home3t he st at e pol i ce t r ansf er r ed

cust ody of t he conf i scated f i r ear ms t o def endant Vi l l age Gun Shop,

I nc. , doi ng busi ness as "Vi l l age Vaul t " ( t he Gun Shop) . As par t

of i t s busi ness, t he Gun Shop operat es a bonded warehouse f or t he

secur e st orage of f i r ear ms and ammuni t i on. See Mass. Gen. Laws

ch. 140, 129D. The Gun Shop i nvent or i ed t he conf i scat ed pr oper t y

and, i n a l et t er t o J ames J ar vi s dat ed t hat same day, l ai d out i t s

3 We not e t hat t he st at ut e, on i t s f ace, per mi t s an i mmedi at et r ansf er of pr oper t y f r omt he pol i ce t o a pr i vat e st or age f aci l i t y.Because t he pol i ce wai t ed f or a mont h or more bef ore t r ansf er r i ngt he weapons conf i scated f r om t he J ar vi s and Cr ampt on r esi dences,we t ake no vi ew as t o how ( i f at al l ) such an i mmedi ate t r ansf ermi ght i mpact our anal ysi s.


7/25

- 7 -

st or age t er ms ( i ncl udi ng f ees and cost s) . The l et t er , t o whi ch a

f or mal i nvent or y was at t ached, expl ai ned J ames J ar vi s' s opt i ons

f or exer ci si ng domi ni on over hi s f i r ear ms, not i ng t hat he coul d

"at any t i me t r ansf er or sel l [ hi s] f i r ear ms t o a f i r ear ms deal er

or a pr oper l y l i censed i ndi vi dual . " The i nvent or y i ncl uded Russel l

J ar vi s' s f i r earms; and even t hough t he Gun Shop di d not send a

separ at e l et t er t o Russel l J ar vi s, he has acknowl edged t hat he saw

t he Gun Shop' s l et t er and was gener al l y aware t hat t he pol i ce had

t r ansf er r ed hi s pr oper t y ( al ong wi t h hi s son' s) t o t he Gun Shop.

On Sept ember 11, 2010, t he Gun Shop sent J ames J ar vi s

i t s i ni t i al i nvoi ce. Thi s i nvoi ce l i st ed out t he accumul at ed

st or age char ges, t he admi ni st r at i ve f ee, and t he handl i ng f ee.

When over 9 mont hs el apsed wi t hout payment , t he Gun Shop sol d t he

conf i scat ed f i r ear ms and associ at ed pr oper t y at publ i c auct i on.

B. Robert Crampton.

Pl ai nt i f f Rober t Cr ampt on i s a gun owner domi ci l ed i n

Tewksbury, Massachuset t s. I n t he spr i ng of 2010, Cr ampt on r epor t ed

a bur gl ar y at hi s home, and t he l ocal pol i ce di scover ed t hat

Cr ampt on owned sever al f i r ear ms f or whi ch he di d not possess a

val i d l i cense. I n poi nt of f act , Cr ampt on' s FI D car d had expi r ed

decades ear l i er . On J une 2, 2010, t he pol i ce conf i scat ed

Cr ampt on' s guns and associ ated parapher nal i a and expl ai ned t o hi m

t hat he needed t o acqui r e a new FI D card.


8/25

- 8 -

Cr ampt on di d not hi ng, and on November 15, 2010 over

f i ve mont hs af t er t he f i r earms had been t aken f r om hi s home t he

pol i ce t r ansf er r ed t he guns to t he Gun Shop f or s t or age. That

same day, t he Gun Shop wr ot e to Cr ampt on, f ur ni shi ng hi m wi t h an

i nvent ory and del i neat i ng t he sundr y charges t hat he woul d be

i ncurr i ng. When ar r ear ages mount ed and Cr ampt on f ai l ed t o pay

t hem f or a per i od of more t han 90 days, t he Gun Shop sol d hi s

f i r ear ms at publ i c auct i on.

C. Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc.

Pl ai nt i f f Commonweal t h Second Amendment , I nc. ( CSA) i s

a non- pr of i t cor por at i on, whi ch has a st at ed pur pose of "educat i on,

r esear ch, publ i shi ng and l egal act i on f ocusi ng on t he

const i t ut i onal r i ght t o pr i vat el y own and possess f i r ear ms. " CSA

asser t s t hat i t "expends si gni f i cant r esour ces assi st i ng t hose

peopl e whose f i r ear ms are hel d by bonded warehouses under t he

aut hor i t y of [ Massachuset t s l aw] . " I t does not al l ege t hat any

f i r ear ms owned by i t have been ei t her conf i scated or auct i oned.

III. TRAVEL OF THE CASE

I n 2012, J ames J ar vi s, Russel l J ar vi s, Rober t Cr ampt on,

and CSA br ought sui t i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he

Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s agai nst t he Gun Shop and Mary E.

Hef f er nan, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as Secret ar y of t he Execut i ve

Of f i ce of Publ i c Saf et y and Secur i t y. The pl ai nt i f f s sought r el i ef

under 42 U. S. C. 1983, mai nt ai ni ng that t hey had been depr i ved of


9/25

- 9 -

t hei r Four t eent h Amendment r i ght t o due pr ocess. Speci f i cal l y,

t hey al l eged t hat t hey were f or ced t o pay st orage char ges and were

per manent l y depr i ved of t hei r pr oper t y ( t he f i r ear ms) wi t hout

pr oper not i ce and oppor t uni t y t o be hear d. Bot h t he Gun Shop and

Hef f er nan deni ed any const i t ut i onal br each.

I n due cour se, t he pl ai nt i f f s moved f or par t i al summar y

j udgment agai nst t he Gun Shop. They sought a r ul i ng t hat t he Gun

Shop was a st ate act or , whi ch coul d be hel d l i abl e f or damages

under sect i on 1983. The di st r i ct cour t demur r ed, concl udi ng t hat

t he Gun Shop was not a st at e act or f or pur poses of a sect i on 1983

act i on. See J ar vi s v. Vi l l age Gun Shop, 53 F. Supp. 3d 426, 437

( D. Mass. 2014) . Accor di ngl y, t he cour t deni ed t he pl ai nt i f f s'

mot i on f or par t i al summar y j udgment and gr ant ed summar y j udgment

on t he st at e act i on i ssue t o t he Gun Shop. See i d. ; see al so Fed.

R. Ci v. P. 56( f ) ( 1) .

Fol l owi ng some pr ocedur al wr angl i ng i ncl udi ng t he

di smi ssal of t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms agai nst Hef f er nan t he

di st r i ct cour t ent er ed a f i nal j udgment i n f avor of t he Gun Shop.

Thi s t i mel y appeal ensued. 4

4 Si nce CSA owned no guns and suf f ered no l oss of anypr oper t y, i t s case was dead on ar r i val . See, e. g. , Gr aj al es v.P. R. Por t s Aut h. , 682 F. 3d 40, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( expl ai ni ng t hatan essent i al el ement of a sect i on 1983 cl ai m i s t hat t he pl ai nt i f fdemonst r ate some depr i vat i on of r i ght s guarant eed by t heConst i t ut i on or l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es) . I n t hi s cour t , CSAmakes no r easoned at t empt t o chal l enge t he j udgment agai nst i t .


10/25

- 10 -

IV. THE MERITS

We di vi de our di scussi on of t he mer i t s i nt o t wo segment s.

We begi n wi t h t he st andards appl i cabl e to appel l at e r evi ew of

summary j udgment s and t he essent i al el ement s of t he sect i on 1983

f r amework. We t hen exami ne t he t heor i es of st at e act i on

under gi r di ng t he pl ai nt i f f s ' cl ai m.

A. The Legal Landscape.

We af f or d pl enar y r evi ew t o a di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of

summary j udgment . See Sant i ago v. Puer t o Ri co, 655 F. 3d 61, 67

( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Where, as here, "a par t y moves f or summary

j udgment and t he cour t , sua spont e, grant s j udgment t he ot her way,

t he usual appr oach t o appel l ate over si ght of Rul e 56 order s must

be i nver t ed. " Quaker St at e Oi l Ref . Cor p. v. Gar r i t y Oi l Co. , 884

F. 2d 1510, 1513 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) . Consequent l y, we vi ew t he f act s

and al l r easonabl e i nf er ences der i ved t her ef r om i n t he l i ght most

hospi t abl e t o t he summar y j udgment l oser ( her e, t he pl ai nt i f f s) .

See i d. We wi l l af f i r m t he ent r y of summary j udgment as l ong as

t he recor d r eveal s no genui ne i ssue as t o any mat er i al f act and

shows t hat t he pr evai l i ng par t y i s ent i t l ed to j udgment as a mat t er

of l aw. See Sant i ago, 655 F. 3d at 68; Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) .

Consequent l y, we t r eat t hat j udgment as f i nal , see Uni t ed St at esv. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( expl ai ni ng t hat cl ai msnot devel oped on appeal ar e deemed abandoned) , and our subsequentr ef er ences t o t he pl ai nt i f f s excl ude CSA unl ess t he cont exti ndi cat es ot her wi se.


11/25

- 11 -

I n t hi s cont ext , an i ssue i s "genui ne" i f t he r ecor d

per mi t s a r at i onal f act f i nder t o r esol ve t hat i ssue i n f avor of

ei t her par t y. See Bor ges ex r el . S. M. B. W. v. Ser r ano- I ser n, 605

F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Wi t hi n t hi s rubr i c, a f act i s "mat er i al "

" i f i t s exi st ence or nonexi st ence has t he pot ent i al t o change t he

out come of t he sui t . " I d. at 5.

Here, t he cor r ect ness of t he summary j udgment r ul i ng

depends on t he di st r i ct cour t ' s appl i cat i on of 42 U. S. C. 1983.

I n or der t o put t hi s appeal i n per spect i ve, t hen, i t i s necessar y

t o r evi si t t he wel l - pl owed t er r ai n of sect i on 1983.

"Sect i on 1983 suppl i es a pr i vat e r i ght of act i on agai nst

a per son who, under col or of st at e l aw, depr i ves anot her of r i ght s

secur ed by t he Const i t ut i on or by f eder al l aw. " Redondo- Bor ges v.

U. S. Dep' t of Hous. & Ur ban Dev. , 421 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2005)

( quot i ng Evans v. Aver y, 100 F. 3d 1033, 1036 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ) . A

cause of act i on under t hi s pr ovi si on compr i ses t wo essent i al

el ement s: f i r st , t he conduct compl ai ned of must have been carr i ed

out "under col or of st ate l aw, " and second, t hat conduct must have

wor ked a depr i vat i on of r i ght s guar ant eed by t he Const i t ut i on or

l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es. Gr aj al es v. P. R. Por t s Aut h. , 682 F. 3d

40, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Mar t i nez v. Col on, 54 F. 3d 980,

984 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ) .

I n t hi s i nst ance, we t r ai n t he l ens of our i nqui r y on

t he "under col or of st ate l aw" r equi r ement ( whi ch was t he l one


12/25

- 12 -

i ssue bef ore t he di st r i ct cour t at summary j udgment ) . Because

t hi s r equi r ement i s t he f unct i onal equi val ent of t he Four t eent h

Amendment ' s " st ate act i on" r equi r ement , see Per ki ns v. Londonder r y

Basket bal l Cl ub, 196 F. 3d 13, 17 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) , "we r egar d

case l aw deal i ng wi t h ei t her of t hese f or mul at i ons as aut hor i t at i ve

wi t h respect t o t he ot her , and we use t he t er mi nol ogi es

i nt er changeabl y, " Sant i ago, 655 F. 3d at 68.

B. The Plaintiffs' Claim.

The cent er pi ece of t he pl ai nt i f f s' sect i on 1983 cl ai mi s

t hei r al l egat i on t hat t hey wer e depr i ved of t hei r due pr ocess

r i ght s by t he Gun Shop. Speci f i cal l y, t hey al l ege t hat t hei r

Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s were abr i dged because t hey were f or ced

t o pay st orage charges and, when t hey di d not do so, t hei r pr oper t y

was per empt or i l y sol d at publ i c auct i on.

I t i s t r ue i f somewhat of a t aut ol ogy t hat t he

Four t eent h Amendment appl i es onl y t o st at e act i on per f ormed by "a

per son who may f ai r l y be sai d t o be a st at e act or . " Lugar v.

Edmondson Oi l Co. , 457 U. S. 922, 937 ( 1982) . When t he named

def endant i n a sect i on 1983 case i s a pr i vat e par t y, t he pl ai nt i f f

must show t hat t he def endant ' s conduct can be cl assi f i ed as s t at e

act i on. See Rendel l - Baker v. Kohn, 457 U. S. 830, 838 ( 1982) . The

st at e act i on i nqui r y i s pr el i mi nar y t o, and i ndependent of , t he

due pr ocess i nqui r y. I f t her e i s no st at e acti on, t he pl ai nt i f f ' s

cl ai m f ai l s. See i d.


13/25

- 13 -

The bar f or such a showi ng i s set qui t e hi gh, and we

have caut i oned t hat "[ i ] t i s ' [ o] nl y i n r ar e ci r cumst ances' t hat

pr i vat e par t i es can be vi ewed as st at e act or s. " Est ades- Negr oni

v. CPC Hosp. San J uan Capest r ano, 412 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2005)

( quot i ng Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F. 2d 1127, 1130 ( 11t h Ci r . 1992)

( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) . Thi s i nqui r y i s t ypi cal l y f act bound.

See Br ent wood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. At hl . Ass' n, 531 U. S.

288, 295- 96 ( 2001) ; Bur t on v. Wi l mi ngt on Par ki ng Aut h. , 365 U. S.

715, 722 ( 1961) ( expl ai ni ng t hat "[ o] nl y by si f t i ng f act s and

wei ghi ng ci r cumst ances can t he nonobvi ous i nvol vement of t he St at e

i n pr i vat e conduct be at t r i but ed i t s t r ue si gni f i cance") .

The Supreme Cour t has mapped out t hree r out es t hat can

l ead t o a f i ndi ng t hat a pr i vat e par t y "may f ai r l y be sai d t o be

a st at e act or . " Lugar , 457 U. S. at 937. St at e act i on may be f ound

i f t he pr i vat e par t y "assumes a t r adi t i onal publ i c f unct i on when

per f or mi ng t he chal l enged conduct , " or i f t he pr i vat e par t y' s

conduct i s "coer ced or si gni f i cant l y encour aged by t he st at e, " or

i f t he pr i vat e par t y and t he st at e have become so i nt er t wi ned t hat

t hey wer e ef f ect i vel y "j oi nt par t i ci pant [ s] " i n t he chal l enged

conduct . Sant i ago, 655 F. 3d at 68 ( quot i ng Est ades- Negr oni , 412

F. 3d at 5) . Unl ess t he f act s of r ecor d her e, vi ewed i n t he l i ght

most f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f s, ar e capabl e of suppor t i ng a

f i ndi ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s have successf ul l y t r avel l ed one or


14/25

- 14 -

more of t hese avenues, t he ent r y of summary j udgment must st and.

See i d. at 69. We t ur n, t hen, t o t hi s i nqui r y.

1. Joint Action. We st ar t wi t h t he pat hway on whi ch

t he pl ai nt i f f s have pl aced t hei r heavi est emphasi s: j oi nt act i on.

To est abl i sh st at e act i on t hrough t hi s r out e, a pl ai nt i f f must

show t hat t he st at e has "so f ar i nsi nuat ed i t sel f i nt o a posi t i on

of i nt er dependence wi t h t he [ pr i vat e par t y] t hat i t was a j oi nt

par t i ci pant i n [ t he chal l enged act i vi t y] . " Sant i ago, 655 F. 3d at

68 ( quot i ng Est ades- Negr oni , 412 F. 3d at 5) ( al t er at i ons i n

or i gi nal ) . The r el evant i nqui r y demands a deep di ve i nt o t he

t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, wi t h hei ght ened at t ent i on t o

cer t ai n speci f i c f act or s. See Per ki ns, 196 F. 3d at 21. Those

f act or s i ncl ude whet her t he pr i vat e par t y i s ( or i s not )

i ndependent f r om t he st at e i n conduct i ng i t s day- t o- day af f ai r s,

see i d. ; whet her t he pr i vat e par t y has shar ed pr of i t s gener at ed

f r om i t s chal l enged conduct wi t h t he stat e, see Bar r i os- Vel azquez

v. Asoci aci on de Empl eados del Est ado Li br e Asoci ado de P. R. , 84

F. 3d 487, 494 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ; and whet her t he pr i vat e par t y has

used publ i c f aci l i t i es, see Bur t on, 365 U. S. at 723- 24. I n t he

case at hand, t he pl ai nt i f f s do not and cannot come cl ose t o

maki ng the requi si t e showi ng.

Her e, t he r ecor d r eveal s no r el at i onshi p bet ween t he

act i vi t i es of t he pol i ce and t hose of t he Gun Shop, wi t h one

except i on: a Massachuset t s st at ut e aut hor i zes t he pol i ce t o


15/25

- 15 -

t r ansf er possessi on of l awf ul l y conf i scat ed f i r ear ms and

associ at ed pr oper t y t o l i censed st or age f aci l i t i es, see Mass. Gen.

Laws ch. 140, 129D, and the Gun Shop oper ates such a f aci l i t y.

Al t hough t hi s t r ansf er may occur wi t hout a gun owner ' s expr ess

aut hor i zat i on, t he st at ut e put s such owner s on not i ce t hat t hei r

pr oper t y may be t r ansf er r ed i f t hey f ai l t o avai l t hemsel ves of

ot her opt i ons. Taken al one, t hat st at ut or y aut hor i zat i on i s t oo

f r agi l e a l i nk: f or pur poses of demonst r at i ng t he r equi r ed nexus

bet ween st at e act i on and pr i vat e act i on, we t hi nk i t i nsuf f i ci ent

si mpl y t o poi nt t o a st at e st at ut e aut hor i zi ng t he act i ons of t he

pr i vat e ent i t y. See J ackson v. Met r o. Edi son Co. , 419 U. S. 345,

350 ( 1974) ; Per ki ns, 196 F. 3d at 20.

Nor can t he pl ai nt i f f s br i dge t hi s gap by showi ng t hat

t he st at e acqui esced i n t he act i ons of t he Gun Shop. Af t er al l ,

wher e t he st at e "has merel y announced t he ci r cumst ances under whi ch

i t s cour t s wi l l not i nt er f er e wi t h a pr i vat e sal e, " st at e acti on

i s not pr esent . Fl agg Br os. , I nc. v. Br ooks, 436 U. S. 149, 164-

66 ( 1978) .

Such a t enuous connect i on bet ween t he st at e and t he Gun

Shop i s surel y not enough t o gr ound a f i ndi ng of st at e act i on

and t he r ecor d di scl oses not hi ng mor e. For exampl e, t her e i s a

compl et e dear t h of evi dence t hat t he Gun Shop depends on t he st at e

i n any r espect f or t he day- t o- day oper at i on of i t s busi ness. See

Per ki ns, 196 F. 3d at 21. Rather , t he Gun Shop oper ates


16/25

- 16 -

i ndependent l y i n al l r el evant r espect s. Once t he pol i ce

t r ansf er r ed possessi on of t he pl ai nt i f f s' f i r ear ms t o t he Gun Shop,

t he pol i ce ceased t o have any i nvol vement wi t h t he st orage and

event ual auct i oni ng of t he conf i scat ed pr oper t y: al l

corr espondence regardi ng t he st orage charges and t he sal e of t he

conf i scat ed pr opert y went di r ect l y between t he Gun Shop and t he

var i ous pl ai nt i f f s .

By t he same t oken, t here i s no quest i on but t hat t he Gun

Shop whol l y owns t he f aci l i t y i n whi ch i t oper at es i t s busi ness.

See Bur t on, 365 U. S. at 723- 24. Nor i s t her e anythi ng i n t he

r ecor d i ndi cat i ng that t he pol i ce hel ped set t he Gun Shop' s s t or age

char ges, shar ed i n t hose char ges, or r ecei ved any par t of t he

auct i on pr oceeds col l ect ed by t he Gun Shop. See Per ki ns, 196 F. 3d

at 21. Under t he st atut ory scheme, t he st ate garner s pr oceeds

f r om conf i scat ed pr oper t y onl y i f t he pol i ce abj ur e t he use of a

pr i vat e st or age f aci l i t y, r et ai n possessi on of t he conf i scat ed

pr oper t y, and t he owner f ai l s t o t r ansf er or r ecl ai m t he pr oper t y

wi t hi n one year . See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, 129D.

I n an ef f or t t o f or est al l t he concl usi on t hat t her e i s

no j oi nt act i vi t y suf f i ci ent t o const i t ut e stat e act i on, t he

pl ai nt i f f s make t hr ee argument s. These argument s are

unconvi nci ng.

Fi r st , t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he act i vi t i es of t he

pol i ce "l ed t o and f aci l i t at ed t he act i ons t hat i nj ur ed" t hem.


17/25

- 17 -

Thi s ar gument amount s t o not hi ng mor e t han an suggest i on t hat t he

pol i ce ar e t he "but - f or " cause of t he Gun Shop' s chal l enged

conduct : had t he pol i ce not conf i scat ed t he pl ai nt i f f s' f i r ear ms,

t he Gun Shop woul d never have gai ned possessi on of t he f i r ear ms

and, t hus, coul d not have i mposed st orage char ges and sol d t he

weapons at publ i c auct i on. Thi s argument pr oves t oo much. I f

but - f or causat i on coul d const i t ut e a suf f i ci ent basi s f or a f i ndi ng

of j oi nt act i on, t he l i ne bet ween st at e and pr i vat e act i on woul d

be bl ur r ed beyond r ecogni t i on. Any t i me t he st ate per f orms an

act i on t hat set s i n mot i on some subsequent act i on by a pr i vat e

par t y say, i ssui ng a dr i ver ' s l i cense t he pr i vat e par t y coul d

be deemed t o have act ed j oi nt l y wi t h t he st ate. So expansi ve a

def i ni t i on of "st at e act i on" woul d evi scer at e t he st at e act i on

r equi r ement .

The pl ai nt i f f s' second ar gument begi ns wi t h t he

pr oposi t i on t hat t he Gun Shop "was per f ormi ng dut i es t hat t he

pol i ce woul d other wi se have been obl i gat ed t o per f or mt hemsel ves. "

Thi s proposi t i on i s si mpl y wr ong. The pl ai nt i f f s r el y pr i nci pal l y

on t he deci si on i n West v. At ki ns, 487 U. S. 42 ( 1988) . I n t hat

case, however , st ate act i on was f ound because t he st ate had

del egat ed an af f i r mat i ve const i t ut i onal obl i gat i on t o a pr i vat e

par t y by cont r act . See i d. at 56- 57. Her e, unl i ke i n West , t he

pol i ce had no af f i r mat i ve obl i gat i on t o r et ai n possessi on of t he

pl ai nt i f f s' pr oper t y. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, 129D.


18/25

- 18 -

Rat her , t he st at ut or y scheme expr essl y al l owed t he pol i ce t o

t r ansf er t he conf i scat ed f i r ear ms t o a l i censed st or age f aci l i t y

at any poi nt af t er t aki ng possessi on of t hem. See i d.

The pl ai nt i f f s count er , however , t hat even i f t he pol i ce

wer e not obl i ged t o keep t hei r f i r ear ms, t he Gun Shop " i nher i t ed"

t hi s st at e obl i gat i on when t he pol i ce t r ansf er r ed t he pl ai nt i f f s'

f i r ear ms. Assumi ng f or ar gument ' s sake t hat such an obl i gat i on

was del egat ed t o t he Gun Shop when t he Gun Shop t ook cust ody of

t he conf i scat ed f i r ear ms, 5 t hat ci r cumst ance woul d not avai l t he

pl ai nt i f f s. The st at ut or y scheme at i ssue her e af f or ds gun owner s

ampl e al t er nat i ves f or how t o di r ect t hei r conf i scat ed pr oper t y

and t her eby avoi d unwant ed st orage charges. See Mass. Gen. Laws

ch. 140, 129D; see al so i d. ch. 209A, 3B. The pl ai nt i f f s chose

t o eschew t hese al t er nat i ves, whi ch i ncl uded chal l engi ng t he

r evocat i on of t he FI D car d or f i r ear ms l i cense, t r ansf er r i ng t he

conf i scat ed pr oper t y t o some per son wi t h a val i d f i r ear ms l i cense

or t o a l i censed deal er of t he owner ' s choi ce, or acqui r i ng ( or

5 We not e t hat t he st at ut or y scheme i t sel f i s l ess t hanpel l uci d i n t hi s regar d. On t he one hand, i t i mposes an obl i gat i onon t he pol i ce t o hol d conf i scat ed f i r ear ms f or up t o a year . SeeMass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, 129D. On t he other hand, i f t he pol i cet r ansf er t he weapons t o an aut hor i zed st or age f aci l i t y, t he st at ut eappear s t o al l ow t hat f aci l i t y t o sel l t he guns af t er 90 days ( i ft he st orage charges go unpai d) . See i d. Her e, moreover , t hesummary j udgment r ecor d i s opaque: i t cont ai ns no evi dence t hatt he pol i ce pur posed t o del egat e t hei r st at e obl i gat i on t o t he GunShop. Nor i s t here any evi dence t hat t he Gun Shop agr eed t o hol dt he t r ansf er r ed f i r ear ms f or any f i xed per i od of t i me.


19/25

- 19 -

r e- acqui r i ng) a val i d f i r ear ms l i cense i n or der per sonal l y t o

r ecl ai m t he conf i scat ed weapons. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140,

129D; see al so i d. ch. 209A, 3B. Gi ven t hi s r ange of unexer ci sed

opt i ons, we t hi nk i t f ol l ows t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s i mpl i edl y

consent ed t o t he t r ansf er of t hei r pr oper t y t o t he Gun Shop. Put

anot her way, t he pl ai nt i f f s' passi ve acqui escence i n t he t r ansf er

of t hei r pr oper t y suf f i ced t o br eak any meani ngf ul l i nk bet ween

t he act i ons of t he pol i ce and those of t he Gun Shop.

The pl ai nt i f f s' t hi r d ar gument i s r eal l y a subset of

t hei r second argument . They at t empt t o dr aw sust enance f r om

sever al cases i n whi ch t he owner of a t owi ng or i mpoundment company

was f ound t o be a st at e act or and, t hus, pot ent i al l y l i abl e under

secti on 1983. These cases l i ke West ar e r eadi l y

di st i ngui shabl e.

I n Smi t h v. I nsl ey' s I nc. , t he def endant t owed and st or ed

t he pl ai nt i f f ' s car i n connect i on wi t h an ongoi ng mur der

i nvest i gat i on. See 499 F. 3d 875, 878 ( 8t h Ci r . 2007) . The

def endant was t her ef or e "per f or mi ng the t r adi t i onal gover nment al

f unct i on of sei zi ng and secur i ng pr oper t y f or a cr i mi nal

i nvest i gat i on. " I d. at 880. That i s not t r ue her e. I n f act, had

a cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on been af oot , t he Massachuset t s st at ut or y

scheme woul d have r equi r ed t he pol i ce t o r et ai n possessi on of t he

conf i scat ed f i r ear ms r at her t han t r ansf er r i ng t hemt o a t hi r d par t y


20/25

- 20 -

( such as an aut hor i zed st or age f aci l i t y) . See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

140, 129D.

I n Col eman v. Tur pen, 697 F. 2d 1341 ( 10t h Ci r . 1982) ,

t he cour t f ound i t t o be of decret or y si gni f i cance t hat t he pr i vat e

t owi ng company had par t i ci pat ed i n t he i ni t i al sei zur e of t he

af f ect ed pr oper t y. As t he Tent h Ci r cui t expl ai ned, t he t owi ng

company t her e act ual l y sei zed t he pl ai nt i f f ' s pr oper t y but al so

pr oceeded t o hol d t he pr oper t y "f or t he [ s] t at e, not f or [ t he

pl ai nt i f f ] . " I d. at 1345. Her e, by cont r ast , t he Gun Shop had no

i nvol vement at al l wi t h ei t her t he pol i ce deci si on t o conf i scat e

t he pl ai nt i f f s' pr oper t y or t he i mpl ement at i on of t hat deci si on.

And unl i ke i n Col eman where t he t owi ng company sol d the

pl ai nt i f f ' s pr oper t y t o sat i sf y t he st or age f ees i ncur r ed by t he

pol i ce, see 697 F. 2d at 1343 t he t r ansf er of t he pl ai nt i f f s'

pr oper t y t o the Gun Shop f or ecl osed any possi bi l i t y t hat t he st at e

mi ght der i ve any economi c benef i t f r om t hat pr oper t y.

To be sure, i n St ypmann v. San Fr anci sco, 557 F. 2d 1338

( 9t h Ci r . 1977) a case f act ual l y si mi l ar t o Col eman t he st at e

woul d not have been abl e t o accompl i sh i t s l arger pur pose of

r emovi ng vehi cl es f r om r oadways when t hei r pr esence cr eat ed a

saf et y r i sk wi t hout t he i nvol vement of t he t owi ng company. See

557 F. 2d at 1340 n. 2, 1341. But t hat i s at a consi der abl e r emove

f r om our case, i n whi ch t he summary j udgment r ecord cont ai ns

not hi ng t o suggest t hat t he pol i ce r equi r ed any assi st ance f r om


21/25

- 21 -

t he Gun Shop i n or der t o conf i scat e and st or e t he pl ai nt i f f s'

f i r earms. The Gun Shop si mpl y pr ovi ded t he pol i ce wi t h an

al t er nat i ve t o st or i ng t he f i r ear ms t hemsel ves. And t he pl ai nt i f f s

had at l east a mont h ( and i n Cr ampt on' s case over 5 mont hs) t o

choose t o st or e t hei r conf i scat ed pr oper t y el sewher e bef or e t he

pol i ce t r ansf er r ed t he pr oper t y t o t he Gun Shop.

That ends t hi s aspect of t he mat t er . Af t er scour i ng t he

r ecor d, we concl ude t hat t her e i s no showi ng of j oi nt act i on

suf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y sect i on 1983' s st at e act i on r equi r ement .

2. Public Function. We t ur n next t o t he publ i c f unct i on

pat hway. To navi gat e t hat r out e, a pl ai nt i f f must show t hat t he

pr i vat e par t y has per f or med a ser vi ce t hat , t r adi t i onal l y, t he

st at e has excl usi vel y under t aken. See Sant i ago, 655 F. 3d at 69.

I n t hi s r egar d, we have emphasi zed bot h t hat " [ e] xcl usi vi t y i s an

i mpor t ant qual i f i er " and t hat "t he act i vi t i es t hat have been hel d

t o f al l wi t hi n t he st at e' s excl usi ve pr eser ve f or pur poses of t he

publ i c f unct i on t est are f ew and f ar bet ween. " I d.

Thi s avenue does not l ead t o a f i ndi ng of st at e act i on

her e. As t he pl ai nt i f f s t hemsel ves have admi t t ed, a l i censed

st or age f aci l i t y ( such as t he Gun Shop) exer ci ses " st at ut or y power s

t hat pol i ce depar t ment s do not enj oy, " not abl y t he abi l i t y t o

char ge st or age f ees. Gi ven t hi s admi ssi on, a f i ndi ng of

excl usi vi t y i s wel l beyond t he pl ai nt i f f s' r each.


22/25

- 22 -

The Supreme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Fl agg Br os. i s

i nst r uct i ve on t hi s poi nt . Ther e, t he pet i t i oner ( a st or age

company) was ent r ust ed wi t h t he r espondent ' s goods af t er t he

r espondent was evi ct ed f r om her apart ment . See 436 U. S. at 153.

When sever al mont hs passed and no st orage f ees were pai d, t he

pet i t i oner pur posed t o sel l t he goods an act i on expr essl y

aut hor i zed by st at e st at ut e. See i d. at 151- 53. I n br i ngi ng a

sect i on 1983 sui t agai nst t he st or age company, t he pet i t i oner

al l eged t hat t he st orage company had become a st at e act or because

t he st at e had del egat ed t o i t a power "t r adi t i onal l y excl usi vel y

r eser ved t o t he [ s] t at e. " I d. at 157 ( quot i ng J ackson, 419 U. S.

at 352) . The Cour t di sagr eed, concl udi ng t hat t he f act s showed no

more than a "pur el y pr i vat e di sput e" bet ween a debt or and a

cr edi t or . I d. at 160. The r espondent coul d r esol ve such a

di sput e, t he Cour t sai d, t hr ough a r af t of st at e- l aw " r i ght s and

r emedi es. " I d. A sect i on 1983 act i on was, t her ef or e, unwar r ant ed.

See i d. at 160- 61.

The f act s i n t hi s case ar e of a pi ece wi t h t hose of Fl agg

Br os. The pl ai nt i f f s do not chal l enge her e t he or i gi nal

conf i scat i on of t hei r f i r ear ms by t he pol i ce but , r at her , chal l enge

onl y t he Gun Shop' s st or age char ges and i t s auct i oni ng of t hei r

conf i scat ed pr oper t y. Moreover as we al r eady have expl ai ned

t he st atut ory scheme pr ovi des gun owner s wi t h a pl et hora of

al t er nat i ves f or how t o di r ect t hei r conf i scat ed pr oper t y and


23/25

- 23 -

t hereby avoi d unwant ed st orage char ges. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

140, 129D; see al so i d. ch. 209A, 3B. The pl ai nt i f f s chose

not t o avai l t hemsel ves of any of t hese al t er nat i ves. Vi ewed i n

t hi s l i ght , t he case at hand l i ke Fl agg Br os. adds up t o

not hi ng more t han a garden- var i ety di sput e between a debt or and a

cr edi t or . Thi s t ype of pur el y pr i vat e di sput e cannot be el evat ed

t o t he l evel of an excl usi ve st at e concer n. See Fl agg Br os. , 436

U. S. at 160- 61; see al so Per ki ns, 196 F. 3d at 19 ( expl ai ni ng t hat

t he "short l i s t of act i vi t i es" f al l i ng wi t hi n t he stat e' s

"excl usi ve pr eser ve" i ncl udes, f or exampl e, "' t he admi ni st r at i on

of el ect i ons, t he oper at i on of a company t own, emi nent domai n,

per empt or y chal l enges i n j ur y sel ect i on, and, i n at l east l i mi t ed

ci r cumst ances, t he oper at i on of a muni ci pal par k' " ) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed Aut o Wor ker s v. Gast on Fest i val s, I nc. , 43 F. 3d 902, 907

( 4t h Ci r . 1995) ) .

3. State Compulsion. Thi s l eaves onl y t he st at e

compul si on avenue. Travel i ng t hi s rout e demands that an i nqui r i ng

cour t ask whet her t he st at e has used coer ci ve power or has pr ovi ded

such a subst ant i al degr ee of encour agement t hat t he pr i vat e par t y' s

deci si on t o engage i n t he chal l enged conduct shoul d f ai r l y be

at t r i but ed t o t he st at e. See Rendel l - Baker , 457 U. S. at 840

( ci t i ng Bl um v. Yar et sky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004 ( 1982) ) . Cont r ar y t o

t he pl ai nt i f f s' i mpor t uni ngs, t he f act s of t hi s case make cl ear

t hat t he st at e compul si on r out e i s a dead end.


24/25

- 24 -

We can be br i ef . Not hi ng i n t he Massachuset t s st at ut or y

scheme ei t her r equi r es or compel s t he Gun Shop or any ot her

pr i vat e st or age company t o pr ovi de i t s ser vi ces t o t he pol i ce.

The opposi t e i s t r ue; a f i r earms deal er , such as t he Gun Shop,

must af f i r mat i vel y seek a l i cense t o of f er such st or age ser vi ces.

What i s mor e, t he pol i ce ar e at l i ber t y t o t r ansf er conf i scat ed

f i r ear ms t o any l i censed deal er who sat i sf i es t he st at ut or y

r equi r ement s. Gi ven t hat bot h t he st at e and t he pr i vat e st or age

compani es have unf et t er ed f r eedom of choi ce wi t h r espect t o t hei r

par t i ci pat i on i n t hi s st at ut or y scheme, a f i ndi ng of st at e

compul si on wi l l not l i e. See Adi ckes v. S. H. Kr ess & Co. , 398

U. S. 144, 170 ( 1970) .

V. CONCLUSION

We summar i ze succi nct l y. I n t hei r act i on agai nst t he

Gun Shop, t he pl ai nt i f f s do not chal l enge ei t her t he conf i scat i on

of t hei r f i r ear ms or t he pol i ce' s aut hor i t y t o t r ansf er t hose

f i r earms t o a bonded warehouse f or st orage. Rat her , t hey chal l enge

t he i mposi t i on of st or age char ges and t he subsequent auct i oni ng of

t hei r f i r ear ms af t er t hey f ai l ed t o pay those st or age char ges.

But t he f act s evi denced i n t he summary j udgment r ecord, even when

vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o the pl ai nt i f f s, do not show

t hat st at e act i on, as opposed t o pr i vat e act i on, pr oduced t hese

assert ed harms. Al t hough t he act i vi t i es under t aken by t he Gun

Shop were aut hor i zed by st at e l aw, mere compl i ance wi t h the


25/25

- 25 -

st r i ct ur es of st at e l aw cannot t r ansmogr i f y pr i vat e act i on i nt o

st at e act i on. Nor i s i t enough t hat t he st at e set i n mot i on t he

subsequent act i ons t aken by t he Gun Shop: but - f or causat i on i s

si mpl y i nsuf f i ci ent t o conj ur e a f i ndi ng of st at e act i on. What ever

r i ght s ( i f any) t he pl ai nt i f f s may have agai nst t he Gun Shop, t hey

have made out none under sect i on 1983.

We need go no f ur t her . We have combed t hr ough t he

pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument s i n suppor t of t hei r st at e act i on r at i onal e

and f ound t hem want i ng. I t f ol l ows t hat t he j udgment of t he

di st r i ct cour t must be

Affirmed.

jarvis v. village gun shop, inc., 1st cir. (2015)

Documents