“The standards for determining whether an action is governmental are the same whether the purported nexus is to the state or to the federal government.”
How later courts described this case
- “The standards for determining whether an action is governmental are the same whether the purported nexus is to the state or to the federal government.”
- “no state, or federal, action unless” a private entity’s decision is “made on the basis of 9 some rule of decision for which the State is responsible.”
- “[T]hat PG & E is a public utility subject to extensive state regulation . . . without more, is insufficient to infuse its conduct with state action.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I generally concur in the court’s opinion, but I respectfully dissent from that portion which reverses the district court’s order dismissing Mathis’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In my view, the dismissal was proper because Mathis has not shown that the NRC “is responsible for the specific conduct of which [he] complains.” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 , 102 S.Ct. 2777, 2786 , 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) (emphasis in original). Mathis relies upon an NRC policy statement which was published one year after he was denied access to Diablo Canyon. While Mathis has alleged pressures from the NRC prior to publication, such pressures, even if proven, do not rise to the level of governmental “coercion” or “responsibility” which is required under established Supreme Court precedents. See id.; Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 , 95 S.Ct. 449 , 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974). Because I find no governmental *1436 action, I believe the district court was correct in dismissing Mathis’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.