Baldwin v. Appalachian Power Co., 76-1735

Citation556 F.2d 241
Decision Date01 June 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-1735,76-1735
PartiesJon-Karl BALDWIN, Appellant, v. APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

Jon-Karl Baldwin, appellant pro se.

Donald D. Hodson, Beckely, W. Va., for appellee.

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jon-Karl Baldwin brought a civil rights action against the Appalachian Power Company alleging that he was deprived of his property without due process of law by the power company's erection of certain power line poles on his property. Baldwin sought compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte, finding that Baldwin had failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is from this judgment that Baldwin appeals.

Taking as true the allegation stated in Baldwin's complaint, as we must, it appears that the Appalachian Power Company, proceeding under W.Va. Code § 54-2-15, secured a right of way through Baldwin's property for the erection of electric power lines and poles. Baldwin claims that a hearing was not granted prior to the power company's taking of the land in question as required by § 54-2-15.

Where a complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, two elements must be established before there can be recovery. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has deprived him of a right secured by the "Constitution and laws" of the United States. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant deprived him of this constitutional right under color of state law. Adickes v. S. H. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970).

Under West Virginia law, the power of eminent domain may be conferred upon private corporations for the purpose of constructing works for the public utility. Specifically, public service corporations may take private land for the construction and maintenance of electric light lines. W.Va. Code § 54-1-2. By exercising the delegated power of eminent domain, a public service corporation acts as an agent of the state, Fork Ridge Baptist Cemetery Ass'n v. Redd, 33 W.Va. 262, 10 S.E. 405 (1889). Thus, we find that the power company, by availing itself of a state-granted right of entry onto Baldwin's property, acted under color of state law. See Lucas v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 466 F.2d 638 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1114, 93 S.Ct. 928, 34 L.Ed.2d 696 (1973).

While we find that Appalachian Power Company was acting under color of state law, we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Klemic v. Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 30 Septiembre 2015
    ...a private entity exercises eminent domain authority, it becomes a state actor within the meaning of § 1983. Baldwin v. Appalachian Power Co., 556 F.2d 241, 242 (4th Cir.1977). Here, a natural gas company's right of entry under § 56–49.01 is part and parcel of its eminent domain authority. S......
  • National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility v. F.E.R.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 12 Enero 2007
    ...on behalf of the state .... Louisville & N.R. Co. v. W. Union Tel. Co., 268 F. 4, 8 (6th Cir.1920). See also Baldwin v. Appalachian Power Co., 556 F.2d 241 (4th Cir.1977) ("By exercising the delegated power of eminent domain, a public service corporation acts as an agent of the state . . ."......
  • Csc Holdings v. Westchester Terrace at Crisfield
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 21 Octubre 2002
    ...The mere fact that CSC is regulated by the FCC does not mean that it is a state actor. Defendant cites Baldwin v. Appalachian Power Co., 556 F.2d 241 (4th Cir.1977), for the proposition that Cablevision is acting under the color of state law for the purposes of § 1983 because it is clothed ......
  • Fike v. United Methodist Children's Home of VA.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 30 Abril 1982
    ...after Burton as guidance for the Court in the types of evidence necessary to establish State action. However, Baldwin v. Appalachian Power Co., 556 F.2d 241 (4th Cir. 1977), found State action not under the symbiotic test but rather under the public function test. Doe v. Charleston Area Med......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT