Richmond v. New York Telephone Co.

448 F. Supp. 715, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18593
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 4, 1978
DocketNo. 77 Civ. 3175
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 448 F. Supp. 715 (Richmond v. New York Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richmond v. New York Telephone Co., 448 F. Supp. 715, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18593 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KNAPP, District Judge.

Plaintiff seeks to hold the defendant New York Telephone Company liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of First Amendment and due process rights in denying him a listing in the New York telephone directory under the heading [716]*716“Montmartre Govt of”.1 Such a denial would be actionable under § 1983 only if defendant’s action could be characterized as that of the state. We find this state action requirement unsatisfied here. See Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974) 419 U.S. 345, 95 S.Ct. 449, 42 L.Ed.2d 477; Taylor v. Con Edison Co. (2d Cir. 1977) 552 F.2d 39. Since the § 1983 claim must be dismissed, an exercise of pendent jurisdiction over plaintiff’s defamation claim would be inappropriate.2 United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966) 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218, Kavit v. A. L. Stamm & Co. (2d Cir. 1974) 491 F.2d 1176. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is accordingly granted.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Parker v. Hearn
695 F. Supp. 1421 (E.D. New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
448 F. Supp. 715, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-v-new-york-telephone-co-nysd-1978.