Private Party Immunities to Section 1983 Suits

Abstract

In Lugar v Edmondson Oil Co., Inc.,1 the Supreme Court significantly lightened the burden on plaintiffs bringing ? 19832 suits against private party defendants under the rationale of state action. The Court held that a private creditor becomes a state actor when it files a petition with the court seeking to attach a debtor's assets pursuant to a state statute that allegedly violates due process.3 The Court concluded that a plaintiff may satisfy ? 1983's state action requirement merely by showing that the private defendant acted together with or . . . obtained significant aid from state officials.4 That the private creditor triggered the subsequent attachment of the debtor's property by public officers was sufficient to meet this test. In dissent, Justice Powell characterized the majority's holding as a disquieting example of how expansive judicial decisionmaking can ensnare a person who had every reason to believe he was acting in strict accordance with law.5 The majority responded by suggesting that private actors might be entitled to a good faith or qualified immunity defense similar to that enjoyed by public officials, although it expressly left the question open.6 This Comment evaluates the impact of Lugar on the joint participation doctrine in general and on the development of private party immunities in particular. Section I focuses on the state ac-