Timothy Barkovic v. Terrance Hogan, 505 F. App'x 496

Barkovic, a Michigan criminal defense lawyer, and Hogan, a Shelby Township police officer, had a verbal and physical altercation in the 41-A District Court Courthouse hallway in Michigan, injuring Barkovic.
Barkovic sued Hogan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; Hogan contends he acted as a private individual, not under color of state law.
Hogan was on duty for official business (subpoena) at the courthouse but was not in uniform or wearing a badge at the time.
There is dispute over whether the jury room was a restricted area and whether Hogan’s prior official conduct toward Barkovic or his role as a police officer affected the incident.
The district court granted Hogan summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, and this court reversed/remanded for jury determination on color-of-law issues, following Chapman v. Higbee Co.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hogan acted under color of state law for §1983.	Barkovic argues Hogan’s official capacity and status as a police officer on duty during the incident makes him a state actor.	Hogan argues he acted as a private individual, not within official duty or state power, though claim he acted within employment guidelines.	There is a genuine fact issue; summary judgment improper; jury must decide color-of-law question.

Chapman v. Higbee Co., 319 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2003) (fact-specific color-of-state-law inquiry; jury verdict appropriate when disputed whether an off-duty officer acted under state authority in a similar context)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (state employment generally renders actor a state actor when abusing state-given power)
Layne v. Sampley, 627 F.2d 12 (6th Cir. 1980) (illustrates pending factual questions in color-of-law determinations)