## Facts

- Marcy Goldberg owned a unit in the 400 East Ohio condominium building in Illinois.
- Illinois’s Condominium Property Act prohibits condominium boards from adopting rules that impair rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and declares such rules void as against public policy.
- The condominium association adopted a rule barring canvassing or distribution of materials to individual units, except materials related to political campaigning.
- Goldberg distributed leaflets in the building and was penalized under the rule.
- The association placed a lien on Goldberg’s unit as a sanction for the leafletting.
- Goldberg filed a federal suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the association and its board, acting under color of state law, violated her First Amendment rights by adopting and enforcing the rule and imposing the lien.
- The association moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to allege state action.

## Issues

1. Whether a private condominium association acts under color of state law, for § 1983 purposes, when it adopts and enforces a canvassing restriction and imposes a lien authorized by state condominium law.
2. Whether potential judicial enforcement of condominium rules or liens triggers state action under the reasoning associated with Shelley v. Kraemer.
3. Whether the association’s governance powers (rulemaking, hearings, fines, liens) constitute a traditionally exclusive public function, or otherwise satisfy nexus/compulsion tests for state action.

## Decision

- The court granted the association’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
- The court held the association and its board were not state actors and did not act under color of state law.
- The court rejected reliance on Shelley because the challenged conduct was the association’s private rulemaking and lien placement, not a court’s enforcement action.
- The court held the association’s governance and enforcement mechanisms were not traditionally exclusive governmental functions.
- The court found no state coercion, encouragement, or sufficiently close nexus between Illinois and the association’s actions.
- The dismissal left Goldberg to pursue any available remedies under state law rather than § 1983.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1983 does not reach purely private conduct; liability requires action attributable to the state.
- Use of, benefit from, or regulation by state law (including statutory lien mechanisms) does not, by itself, convert private conduct into state action.
- Shelley-based state action is limited and generally concerns direct judicial enforcement; the mere possibility that a court might later enforce a private covenant or lien is insufficient.
- The public-function test requires conduct that is traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state; internal governance by private associations, including fines and liens against members, does not meet that standard.
- A state statute that restricts private rules by referencing First Amendment norms may create state-law rights and remedies, but it does not automatically transform private actors into state actors for federal constitutional claims.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Goldberg’s § 1983 First Amendment claim because a private condominium association’s adoption and enforcement of internal rules, including placement of a statutory lien, did not constitute state action; any challenge to the rule was properly a matter of state law, not federal constitutional litigation.


Goldberg v. 400 E. Ohio Condo. Ass’n, 12 F. Supp. 2d 820 (N.D. Ill. 1998)