## Facts

- Giles M. Lugar operated a Virginia truck stop and owed fuel-supply debts to Edmondson Oil Company, Inc.
- Edmondson sued Lugar in Virginia state court and, before judgment, sought a prejudgment attachment under a Virginia statute allowing ex parte attachment based on an allegation that the debtor might dispose of property to defeat creditors.
- A state court clerk issued the writ of attachment, and the county sheriff executed it by levying on Lugar’s property.
- Although Lugar retained physical possession, the attachment encumbered the property and impaired his ability to use it.
- After a post-attachment hearing, the trial judge dismissed the attachment (34 days after the levy) because Edmondson failed to prove the statutory grounds.
- Lugar filed a federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, based on Edmondson’s joint participation with state officials in the attachment.

## Issues

1. Whether, for a § 1983 claim alleging a Fourteenth Amendment violation, the “state action” requirement and § 1983’s “under color of state law” requirement are coextensive.
2. Whether a private creditor acts under color of state law when it invokes a state prejudgment attachment procedure that is implemented by state officials (clerk issuance and sheriff levy).
3. Whether a § 1983 claim lies against a private creditor for (a) using an allegedly unconstitutional attachment scheme versus (b) merely misusing an otherwise valid statute.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed in part.
- For § 1983 claims premised on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court held that “state action” and “under color of state law” are the same inquiry.
- The Court held that a private party who jointly participates with state officials in executing a prejudgment seizure under a state statute may be treated as a state actor and thus acts under color of state law.
- The Court distinguished between claims challenging the constitutionality of the state-created attachment procedure and claims alleging only private misuse of a valid statute; private misuse alone is not attributable to the State.

## Legal Principles

- In § 1983 actions alleging Fourteenth Amendment violations, the statutory “under color of state law” requirement is coextensive with the constitutional “state action” requirement.
- Conduct is “fairly attributable to the State” when:
  - the deprivation is caused by exercising a right or privilege created by the State (or a state-imposed rule of conduct); and
  - the party charged with the deprivation is fairly treated as a state actor because it is a state official, acted together with state officials, obtained significant aid from state officials, or its conduct is otherwise chargeable to the State.
- A private creditor’s joint participation with state officials in the seizure of property under an authorized prejudgment attachment procedure can satisfy both prongs and support § 1983 liability.
- A claim that merely alleges a private party violated or abused state law, without a constitutionally defective state procedure fairly attributable to the State, does not by itself establish state action.

## Conclusion

The Court held that when a private creditor invokes a state prejudgment attachment procedure that requires and receives active assistance from state officials, the creditor’s conduct can be treated as state action and action under color of state law for § 1983 purposes, while cautioning that private misuse of a valid statute is not automatically attributable to the State.


Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982)