Sentementes v. D'Amico
To allege that a defendant violated a plaintiff's rights, pursuant to 42 United States Code §1983, a plaintiff must allege: 1.) the alleged conduct was attributable to a person who acted under color of state law; and 2.) the alleged conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity under the Constitution or laws of the U.S. The pro se plaintiff, Thomas Sentementes, filed a civil-rights suit, alleging that the defendant, Paula D'Amico, violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights and 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiff also sued Jeffrey Immelt and Richard Laxer, alleging that they knew, or should have known, that D'Amico's alleged conduct violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. "To satisfy the state action requirement where the defendant is a private entity, the allegedly unconstitutional conduct must be fairly attributable to the state," pursuant to Tancredi v. Metro Life Ins. Co., a 2003 decision of the 2nd Circuit. The pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to allege that Jeffrey Immelt, Richard Laxer and Paula D'Amico either qualified as state actors or acted "under color of state law," as required to allege a §1983 claim. The plaintiff did not adequately identify any constitutional right that allegedly was violated. The court dismissed the plaintiff's §1983 count, for failure to state a claim, and it did not exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims.