With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not this Court. Federal Claims To state a claim that is cognizable in federal court as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), as the plaintiff claims, he must plead two essential elements. He must show, first, that he has been deprived of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, that the defendants allegedly depriving him of those rights acted under color of federal law. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999. The plaintiff in the case sub judice cannot meet the second of these two requirements. An ex-wife, even when an ex-wife acts with her divorce attorney(s), is not a state actor. See Greenlee v. Greenlee, 2005 WL 1030334 (E.D.Mich.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Patel v. Heidelberger, 6 Fed.Appx.

A: holding that establishing the existence of an understanding among private parties and state actors for  1983 conspiracy purposes is really nothing more than another way to show state action by alleging a private partys connection to a state actor
B: holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law
C: holding that an exwife is not a state actor and holding on page 6 that a plaintiff may not proceed in a civil rights action against a private party no matter how discriminatory or wrongful the partys conduct american mfrs mut ins co v sullivan 526 us 40 50 119 sct 977 143 led2d 130 1999
D: holding that a private actors conduct was not state action just because the government failed to supervise that partys conduct
C.