Eggleston v. Prince Edward Volunteer Rescue Squad

• Decision Date: 08 August 1983
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 83-0047-R.
• Citation: 569 F. Supp. 1344
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: Carl U. EGGLESTON v. PRINCE EDWARD VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD, INC., et al.

569 F. Supp. 1344

Carl U. EGGLESTON v. PRINCE EDWARD VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD, INC., et al.

Civ. A. No. 83-0047-R.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.

August 8, 1983.

D. Brock Green, Wyatt, Rosenfield & Green, Charlottesville, Va., for plaintiff.

William B. Cave, Charles Midkiff, Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent & Chappell, Richmond, Va., for defendants.

OPINION

WARRINER, District Judge.

Plaintiff has sued defendants for compensatory and injunctive relief alleging violation of his constitutional rights by defendants' action in expelling plaintiff from membership in defendant Rescue Squad. Plaintiff brings his suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985(3). The Court has before it defendants' ripe motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both parties having filed exhibits, affidavits, and depositions, defendants' 12(b)(6) motion is treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(b).

The following material facts are undisputed. Defendant Prince Edward Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc., located in Prince Edward County, Virginia, is a private nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to provide emergency medical transportation and services to the community without charge. Prior to 12 May 1982, plaintiff Carl U. Eggleston, a black man, had held positions in defendant Rescue Squad as officer, executive committee member, and general member.

On 14 January 1982, John Thompson, a white member of the Rescue Squad, used the term "niggers" in the presence of plaintiff and other members of the Rescue Squad. Plaintiff sought some official action on behalf of defendant Rescue Squad against Thompson for his racially derogatory remark. On 14 April 1982, plaintiff moved the Executive Committee and then, at the Committee's direction, moved the general membership, to suspend Thompson from the Rescue Squad for six months. Plaintiff's motion failed for lack of a second. On 11 May 1982, plaintiff appeared before the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors, advised the Board of Thompson's remark and of the membership's inaction, and requested that the County withhold any donation to the Squad pending disciplinary action against Thompson.

The following day, 12 May 1982, at the Rescue Squad's general membership meeting, a motion was made by defendant Baldwin, seconded by defendant Davis, and adopted by a sixteen to two vote of the general membership to dismiss plaintiff from the Rescue Squad. The amended complaint alleges that all individual defendants participated in the decision to dismiss plaintiff and implies the vote to dismiss plaintiff was split along racial lines, there being only two voting black members present.

According to the amended complaint, plaintiff was expelled from the Rescue Squad because he appeared before the Board of Supervisors, because he did not keep his grievance "within the Squad," and because he is black and was protecting the rights and dignity of black people. Defendants assert that plaintiff was dismissed for the "good of the organization" pursuant to the Rescue Squad's constitution and by-laws.

Membership in the Rescue Squad is voluntary and members receive no remuneration for their services. The Rescue Squad owns the building from which it operates and the equipment it uses. In 1982 Prince Edward County (the County) contributed $6,000 to the Rescue Squad; the County has contributed some funds every year since the Squad's inception. The Squad's operating budget in 1982 was $48,000, most of which came from private contributions. That same year the Town of Farmville (the Town) contributed gasoline for the Squad's vehicles and water for its building. The Town provides free dispatching services to the Squad through the Police Department's "911" emergency number. The value of the Town's contributions is roughly equal to the County's. The Rescue Squad's real and personal property are exempt by law from State and local taxation. The Rescue Squad holds State operational and emergency medical service vehicle permits and follows State regulations concerning record keeping, sanitation, and maintenance of its vehicles and the medical equipment and supplies required to be carried thereon. Rescue Squad members receive free private vehicle permits from the Town and from the County.

During 1981 and 1982 defendant Rescue Squad received $6,148 in federally-funded matching grants for equipment purchases. The distribution of these federal funds was administered by the Old Dominion Emergency Medical Services Alliance, Inc. (ODEMSA), whose Board has complete discretion in deciding which emergency medical services organizations will receive these grants. ODEMSA is a private non-profit corporation but was designated pursuant to State law to receive and disburse public funds.

The General Assembly has provided that local governing bodies may adopt ordinances for the purpose of controlling through franchises and permits the rendering of local emergency transportation services. Va.Code § 32.1-156. The General Assembly has also provided that the political subdivision housing the Rescue Squad's principal office may adopt a resolution acknowledging Rescue Squad members as employees of the political subdivision for workmen's compensation coverage. Va.Code § 65.1-4.1. Neither the County nor the Town has adopted such ordinance or resolution.

Neither the County nor the State controls the internal operation or membership activities of the Rescue Squad. The Squad receives no funds from the State, receives no free oil for its vehicles from the Town, and its gasoline is not exempt from taxation under State law. Rescue Squad members are not classified as employees of the Town or County and are not covered by the workmen's compensation insurance of either.¹

I. SECTION 1983

The amended complaint alleges that in dismissing plaintiff from the Rescue Squad, defendants acted under color of State law to deprive plaintiff of his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of free speech, to petition the government for redress of grievances, to equal protection of the laws, and to due process of the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two elements are required to establish a § 1983 claim:

First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has deprived him of a right secured by the `Constitution and laws' of the United States. Second, the plaintiff must show that the defendant deprived him of this constitutional right `under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or territory.'

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1604, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970).

A. State Action Requirement

The First and Fifth Amendments prohibit the federal government from infringing on the rights that plaintiff claims. Likewise "the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the states from denying federal constitutional rights and which guarantees due process, applies to acts of the states, not to acts of private persons or entities." Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 837, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 2769-70, 73 L.Ed.2d 418, 425 (1982), citing Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11, 3 S.Ct. 18, 21, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883). "And § 1983, which was enacted pursuant to the authority of Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits interference with federal rights under color of State law." Id. "In cases under § 1983, `under color' of law has consistently been treated as the same thing as the `State action' required under the Fourteenth Amendment." Id. 457 U.S. at 838, 102 S.Ct. at 2770, 73 L.Ed.2d at 426, quoting United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794 n. 7, 86 S.Ct. 1152, 1157 n. 7, 16 L.Ed.2d 267 (1966); see Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 929-932, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2750-51, 73 L.Ed.2d 482, 491-92 (1982).

"The ultimate issue in determining whether a private entity is subject to suit under § 1983 is the same question posed in cases arising under the Fourteenth Amendment: is the alleged infringement of federal rights `fairly attributable to the State?'" Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 2770, 73 L.Ed.2d 418, 426 (1982). The central issue upon which the parties contend is not whether plaintiff was dismissed because of his exercise of his rights of free speech and to petition the government, or because he is black, or without adequate procedural protections, but whether the action of the Rescue Squad and of the individual defendants in dismissing plaintiff can fairly be viewed as "State action." Id.

1. Lugar Test

The Supreme Court has enunciated a number of tests for determining when the actions of a private entity or person may be considered State action. Defendants urge the Court to accept the two-tiered test described by the Supreme Court in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982), as the standard.²

Lugar was a § 1983 suit challenging a private creditor's prejudgment attachment of a debtor's property. The Supreme Court explicitly limited its holding in Lugar to the "particular context of prejudgment attachment."³ Id. at 939, 102 S.Ct. at 2755, 73 L.Ed.2d at 497 n. 21; see Deal v. Newport Datsun Ltd., 706 F.2d 141 at 142 (4th Cir.1983). In addition to the prejudgment attachment limitation, Lugar requires a specific challenge to a State statute as procedurally defective under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause; private misuse of a proper State statute is not conduct that can be attributed to the State. Id. 457 U.S. at 941, 102 S.Ct. at 2756, 73 L.Ed.2d at 498. Since the instant case does not involve prejudgment attachment or a challenge to any State law, defendants' reliance on the Lugar test is misplaced.⁴

2. Symbiotic Relationship Test

The facts alleged in the amended complaint clearly fail to establish between defendants and the State a "symbiotic relationship" such as the one found to exist in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81...