or sex have been made. Plaintiffs claim that non-raeial classes are protected under both sections 1983 and 1985 and that Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously against the class of high-volume providers. However, “class” does not mean any group with some common feature, but rather a group with an inherent characteristic such as race or sex. The status of Medicaid provider is voluntarily assumed by a person with the State’s permission and can be terminated by either party; protected classes under sections 1983 and 1985 cannot easily alter their defining characteristic, nor is it dependent on the State’s regulations. Thus, Plaintiffs allegations, even if true, do not constitute discrimination based on an impermissible factor. See Grossman v. Axelrod, 646 F.2d 768 (2d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, Plaintiffs have not shown that the
holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 holding no exhaustion requirement in  1983 suit alleging violations of the medicaid act holding that a medicaid provider has no property interest in prospective reimbursement payments for purposes of section 1983 holding that there is an exhaustion requirement in  1983 suits asserting violations of the medicaid act holding housing statutes create no rights in tenants for purposes of section 1983