Grapentine v. Pawtucket Credit Union, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11269

In September 2008 Grapentine entered a mortgage with Pawtucket Credit Union to buy real estate in Rhode Island.
The mortgage allowed acceleration and invocation of a statutory power of sale under Rhode Island law, § 34-11-22.
After Grapentine defaulted in October 2012, PCU foreclosed using the statutory power of sale.
Grapentine sued in district court alleging due process violations under federal and state law due to non-judicial foreclosure.
The district court granted PCU’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Grapentine appealed the district court’s dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Grapentine’s § 1983 claim has federal jurisdiction via state action.	Grapentine argues PCU is a state actor under multiple tests.	PCU contends there is no state action; private conduct is insufficient.	No state action; § 1983 jurisdiction is lacking.

Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (U.S. (1980)) (establishes two elements for § 1983 claims; private conduct not automatically actionable)
American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (U.S. (1999)) (§ 1983 does not apply to merely private conduct)
Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (U.S. (1978)) (legislative authorization of private power of sale not state action)
Apao v. Bank of N.Y., 324 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2003) (private foreclosure remedies do not automatically involve state action)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922 (U.S. (1982)) (joint action/nexus test requires state participation in private action)
Alberto San, Inc. v. Consejo De Titulares Del Condominio San Alberto, 522 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (private party can be state actor only with proper state action)