of Criminal Justice no longer sold to inmates. Second, the majority again errs by failing to do exactly what the district court and the parties failed to do — discuss the relevant case law. Both the Supreme Court and this court, on several occasions, have addressed the color of state law issue. “It is firmly established that a defendant in a § 1983 suit acts under color of state law when he abuses the position given to him by the State.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988). That is, “[mjisuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken ‘under color of state law.” United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941) (<HOLDING>). “Acts of officers who undertake to perform
holding that election case was not moot after election because there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining parties would be subject to that same action in the future holding that the color of law element may be satisfied by the fact that an official gains access to the victim in the course of official duty holding that election officials acted under color of state law when they in the course of their official duties willfully altered and falsely counted the ballots of voters in a primary election holding that to prevail on a  1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law in other words that there was state action holding that informant acted under color of law when fbi supervised recording