Bishop v. TOYS\ R\ US-NY LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that private security guards are not usually state actors under Section 1983
• denying motion to dismiss where plaintiff alleged that private security guard had been sworn in as a “special patrolman”
• “The acts of a store security guard generally do not constitute state action for purposes of section 1983.”
• plaintiff “alleged false imprisonment, false arrest, assault, battery, trespass to chattels, and violations of state civil rights laws”
• “The acts of a store security guard generally do not constitute state action for purposes of section 1983.”
• “The acts of a store security guard generally do not constitute state action for purposes of section 1983.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).