Thomas Blankenship v. Charles Buenger, 653 F. App'x 330

Background

Plaintiff Thomas Blankenship, a member of Chalk Bluff Water Supply Corporation (CBWSC), sought CBWSC records and a board seat in late 2013; disputes with CBWSC staff led to a trespass warning from McLennan County deputies.
Blankenship filed a federal § 1983 suit against CBWSC directors and Sheriff Parnell McNamara alleging due-process, First Amendment, and conspiracy claims; he also challenged Texas Penal Code § 30.05 as-applied.
The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) (and relied on jurisdictional matters); Blankenship appealed.
Central legal questions: whether CBWSC and its directors are state actors under § 1983; whether prior state-court pleadings estop defendants from denying state action; and whether Blankenship has standing/ripe as-applied procedural due-process claims attacking § 30.05 or the trespass-warning practice.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo, considered both Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) standards, and examined the complaint plus record materials the district court relied on.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CBWSC defendants acted "under color" of state law for § 1983	Blankenship: CBWSC is a state actor (entwinement/public function; heavily regulated; designated a "political subdivision" in Texas law)	Defendants: CBWSC is a private nonprofit; state regulation/benefits do not make it a state actor	Held: CBWSC not a state actor; § 1983 claims dismissed
Whether prior state-court invocation of official immunity is a judicial admission/estops defendants from denying state action	Blankenship: prior pleading invoking official immunity is a judicial admission establishing state-actor status	Defendants: prior pleading was in a nonsuited, separate case and not binding; judicial admissions do not control in separate proceedings	Held: No judicial-admission or estoppel effect; prior pleadings not binding here
Whether entwinement/public-function or joint-action theories make CBWSC a state actor	Blankenship: statutory regulation, monopoly, tax-exempt status, and provision of water are akin to a public function or show entwinement	Defendants: regulation, monopoly, and contractual/public customers insufficient; no pervasive state control or public officials governing CBWSC	Held: Entwinement/public-function/joint-activity theories fail; regulatory oversight and benefits insufficient to create state action
Standing/ripeness for as-applied procedural due-process challenge to Tex. Penal Code § 30.05 and trespass-warning practice	Blankenship: trespass warning and threatened arrest deter rights and create imminent injury; he seeks injunctive relief against enforcement	Defendants/Sheriff: No prosecution under § 30.05; lack of concrete, imminent injury; improper defendant for statute challenge	Held: No standing for as-applied § 30.05 challenge (no prosecution, speculative future injury); trespass-warning practice claim (raised late) would not plausibly show protected property interest; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657 (2012) (on color-of-state-law principles and § 1983 scope)
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288 (2001) (entwinement test for private entities as state actors)
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974) (extensive regulation and monopoly do not alone create state action)
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) (pre-enforcement standing where threats of prosecution create imminent injury in First Amendment context)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (§ 1983 state-action and color-of-law framing)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permitting suits to enjoin unconstitutional state-law enforcement by state officials)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards for plausible claims under Rule 12(b)(6))