that by denying the relief requested in his complaint, the district court violated the ADA and the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Firstenberg’s arguments in this regard are founded on a misunderstanding of the law, and they provide no basis for reversal. {36} As an initial matter, Mr. Firstenberg’s complaint, having failed to allege that Defendants’ conduct amounted to a constitutionally impermissible state actio helley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 14 (1948), stated a contrary position, the Supreme Court has since modified its position. Compare id. (stating that the actions of state courts and their judicial officers “is to be regarded as [an] action of the [s]tate within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment”), with Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 928, 937, 939 n.21 (1982) (<HOLDING>). See King, 174 P.3d at 671 (recognizing that
recognizing that the nexus between the place to be searched and the items to be seized may be established by the nature of the item and the normal inferences of where one would likely keep such evidence internal quotation marks omitted holding that a statute must be construed so that no part of the statute is rendered surplusage or superfluous internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that state action occurs when inter alia the party charged with the deprivation is a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor holding that supervisory liability under  1983 must be based on active unconstitutional behavior and cannot be based upon a mere failure to act internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that the party charged with the deprivation of a federal right must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor and rejecting the notion that a private partys mere invocation of state legal procedures satisfies the stateactor requirement internal quotation marks and citation omitted