a)  traditional approach
(1)    14th am. dp requires state action Civil Rts. cases
(2)    misuse of state power is still state action Screws
(3)    public defender working for state was state actor but not working under color of state law (b/c atty-client relationship usurped under color of state law)
(4)    Edmonson  under color of state law?
a.  extent to which actor relies on govt’l assistance and benefits
b.  whether actor is performing a traditional govt’l functions
c.  whether injury caused is aggravated in a unique way by the incidents of govt’l authority (Shelley)
b)  public function theory (alter ego of the state)
1.    private individual performs an exclusive state fx => private person becomes alter ego of the state and a state actor
2.    Marsh:  city-run town was performing public fx and became state actor for that purpose
3.    rule: where a civilian assumes & executes an exclusive police power function of the sovereign, then the civilian acts as an alter ego of the state; therefore state action is implicit in the function
4.    Flagg v. Brooks:  deprivation not by state actor; so no 1983 coa
5.    why?  b/c state law didn’t compel person to sell P’s goods, it just silently acquiesced to the sale of the goods
6.    Lebron:  Amtrak created under fed. law and is state actor [note: no sovereign immunity issue b/c only seeking inj. and not damages!]
c)  neutral state action
1.  state licensed club was neutral state action b/c state had nothing to do with the discriminatory practices Moose Lodge
2.  Blum test:  the mere fact that a bsns is subj. to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the state (Metro & Moose Lodge)
a)  sufficiently close nexus (causal connection) btwn civilian transgression and the conduct of the state, so we can say the civilian acted as the alter ego of the state
b)  a state normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement either overt or covert that the choice is deemed that of the state (ex.  where drunk guy told to drive straight home or be arrested and charged, this is not really a choice and it is state action via coercion)
c)  the req’d nexus may be present if the private entity has exercised powers that are traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state (public fx theory Flagg, Marsh)
d)  symbiotic relationship
1.  state benefits from symbiotic relationship => state has affirmative duty to ensure things are non-discriminatory
2.  Burton:  state benefited from restaurant at public park; had affirm. duty to insert non-discrim clause into lease
3.  when facts show symbiosis like this, it’s almost as if the state itself had discriminatory motives