## Facts

- Samaad Bishop, an African-American customer, bought a doll set at a Toys “R” Us store in the Bronx on July 3, 2004.
- As Bishop attempted to leave, a store security guard, Michael McDaniel, demanded to see Bishop’s receipt.
- Bishop refused; he alleged that store and security personnel detained and assaulted him, including blocking his exit, shoving him back into the store, and telling him he was not free to leave.
- Bishop alleged that two white women exited without being stopped.
- Bishop alleged that the guard justified the receipt check as store policy and stated that Black people stole more often than white people.
- Bishop alleged that he summoned police; when they arrived and he showed a receipt, he was released.
- Bishop alleged McDaniel was sworn as a “special patrolman” with police-like powers, making his conduct action under color of state law.
- Bishop sued Toys “R” Us–NY LLC, the security contractor (Metro One), and individual employees for federal civil-rights violations and state torts.

## Issues

1. Whether the court had federal-question jurisdiction where the complaint pleaded claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1983.
2. Whether the pleadings stated plausible claims under §§ 1981 and 1982 based on allegedly race-based interference with a retail purchase and the right to possess purchased property.
3. Whether the pleadings adequately alleged “state action” for § 1983 purposes based on the guard’s alleged status as a sworn special patrolman exercising delegated police powers.
4. Whether, with some federal claims remaining, the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over related New York tort claims.
5. Whether and on what theories the corporate defendants could be liable for the guard’s and employees’ conduct at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court denied dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding the federal civil-rights claims were not so insubstantial as to defeat jurisdiction.
- The court granted defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court allowed core §§ 1981 and 1982 theories to proceed based on allegations of disparate treatment and explicit racial statements connected to Bishop’s attempt to leave with purchased goods.
- The court permitted the § 1983 claim to proceed at least in part because the complaint plausibly alleged that the guard acted under color of state law as a sworn special patrolman when detaining Bishop.
- Because at least one federal claim survived, the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over at least some related state-law tort claims (including claims tied to the alleged detention and physical contact), while narrowing or dismissing other aspects.

## Legal Principles

- Federal-question jurisdiction exists where pleaded federal claims are colorable and non-frivolous; deficiency on the merits does not automatically defeat jurisdiction.
- Under Rule 12(c), the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the non-movant.
- A plaintiff may state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1982 in a retail setting by plausibly alleging intentional racial discrimination that interferes with the ability to contract for goods or to possess and enjoy purchased property.
- A private security guard may be treated as acting under color of state law for § 1983 purposes when the guard is alleged to have been granted and to have exercised delegated police powers (such as those associated with sworn special patrolman status).
- When at least one federal claim remains, a federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same events, subject to dismissal or narrowing of insufficiently pleaded tort theories.

## Conclusion

The court held that Bishop’s complaint presented colorable federal civil-rights claims and, at the pleading stage, plausibly alleged race-based discriminatory treatment in a retail transaction and potential state action by a sworn special patrolman; it therefore denied wholesale dismissal, granted judgment on the pleadings only in part, and allowed the case to proceed on surviving federal and related state claims.


Bishop v. Toys “R” Us–NY LLC, 414 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)