Kevin Lindke v. James Freed
37 F.4th 1199
6th Cir.2022Background
- James Freed created a public Facebook "page" (as a "public figure") after reaching profile limits; he updated it to show he was Port Huron city manager and listed the City website, a City administration email, and City Hall address.
- The page contained both personal content (family photos, community events) and posts about official actions, including COVID-19 policies Freed implemented.
- Kevin Lindke criticized Freed in comments about Freed’s pandemic response; Freed deleted some comments and blocked Lindke from the page.
- Lindke sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming Freed violated Lindke’s First Amendment rights by deleting comments and blocking him.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Freed; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Freed’s Facebook activity was personal (not state action) and thus not actionable under § 1983.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freed’s deletion/blocking on his Facebook page is state action under § 1983 | Lindke: The page functioned as an official communication channel; Freed’s actions were attributable to the City and thus state action | Freed: The page is a personal account he created before office; no law, funds, staff, or office ownership ties it to the City | No — page was personal; Freed’s conduct was not fairly attributable to the State |
| Whether a page’s appearance/trappings (city contact info, title, photos/pins) alone can make it state action | Lindke: Trappings and presentation created the impression of an official, state-run account and thus state action | Freed: Appearance doesn’t confer governmental authority; absent duties, funding, office ownership, or staff control, trappings are insufficient | Appearance alone is insufficient; court focuses on official duties, state resources, or use of state employees |
| Whether state-action determination is a question of law for the court or a jury | Lindke: State-action can be fact-intensive and should go to the jury | Freed: Court may decide as a matter of law where facts don’t create a triable issue | Court: State-action is a legal question; it can be decided as a matter of law (consistent with precedent) |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (establishes that § 1983 requires action under color of state law)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (state-action requirement: conduct must be fairly attributable to the State)
- Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (nexus test for state attribution)
- Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288 (state control/entwinement can make private action state action)
- Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296 (government management or control can convert private action into state action)
- Waters v. City of Morristown, 242 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.) (state-official test: acting pursuant to duties or authority of office)
- Dean v. Byerley, 354 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.) (applying state-official test to public officials)
- Chapman v. Higbee Co., 319 F.3d 825 (6th Cir.) (discussing nexus and state-action tests)
- Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir.) (examined presentation-plus-governmental control in social-media context)
- Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666 (4th Cir.) (social-media account at intersection of personal and official use)
- Campbell v. Reisch, 986 F.3d 822 (8th Cir.) (social-media and state-action analysis)
- Stengel v. Belcher, 522 F.2d 438 (6th Cir.) (public officials acting in personal pursuits fall outside § 1983)
- Neuens v. City of Columbus, 303 F.3d 667 (6th Cir.) (state-action is a legal issue)
- Layne v. Sampley, 627 F.2d 12 (6th Cir.) (state-action can be resolved as law in certain cases)
- American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (appearance or exercise of state-created privileges can signify state action)