## Facts

- Kenneth S. Uston, an experienced blackjack player and alleged card counter, played blackjack at the Flamingo Hilton casino in Las Vegas on June 29, 1975.
- Casino security guards approached Uston at the table, told him to leave, escorted him to the entrance, and read him Nevada’s trespass statute; he then departed.
- Uston alleged the casino excluded him because he was a “better than average” blackjack player and that card counting was not illegal under Nevada law.
- Uston sued Hilton Hotels Corporation, related casino entities, and individual casino employees, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- Uston asserted federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and also asserted Nevada state-law claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court found no genuine dispute of material fact and addressed whether any federal claim and federal jurisdiction existed.

## Issues

1. Whether a privately owned, heavily regulated casino acted “under color of state law” when it excluded a patron, supporting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.
2. Whether allegations that casinos conspired to exclude card counters stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (and thus § 1986) without allegations of class-based, invidious discrimination.
3. Whether the court had diversity jurisdiction over the state-law claims where the plaintiff and at least one defendant shared the same state citizenship.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted for defendants on all federal claims.
- The court held the casino’s exclusion decision was private conduct and not attributable to the state; Nevada gaming regulation did not create state action for § 1983 purposes.
- The court held § 1985 required class-based, invidious discriminatory animus, which was not alleged; the § 1986 claim failed because it depended on a valid § 1985 claim.
- The court dismissed the state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because complete diversity was absent.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1983 plaintiff must show deprivation of a federal right caused by conduct fairly attributable to the state; private conduct is not actionable without significant state involvement in the challenged act.
- Extensive licensing and regulation of a private industry does not, by itself, convert a private business’s discretionary decision into state action.
- A state’s regulatory choice not to prohibit certain private conduct does not, without more, constitute state participation in that conduct.
- A § 1985 conspiracy claim requires allegations of class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus; economic or skill-based targeting is insufficient.
- A § 1986 claim is derivative and fails absent a viable § 1985 violation.
- Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity; shared citizenship between any plaintiff and any defendant defeats jurisdiction over state-law claims.

## Conclusion

The court held that a casino’s expulsion of a skilled blackjack player was private conduct not attributable to the state despite pervasive gaming regulation, rejected conspiracy claims lacking class-based discriminatory animus, and dismissed remaining state-law claims because complete diversity was absent.


Uston v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 448 F. Supp. 116 (D. Nev. 1978)