Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the district court's denial of Petitioner's request to supplement her pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), where the email at issue evidences government retaliation as a matter of law and satisfies this Court's Lugar test to demonstrate state action' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982), this Court announced a test permitting a plaintiff to show “state action” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when that element is challenged. In the present : case, the Western District of Texas denied Petitioner’s request to supplement her complaint after she learned of an email from a state actor to her employer, which : negatively referenced Petitioner’s protected activity in this case and suggested her removal from her job. The district court held that supplementation under ' Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) would be futile, as Petitioner could : not show “state action” under Lugar. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. : THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE 1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirm: ing the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s request . as futile to supplement her pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), where the email at issue evidences government retaliation as a matter of law and satisfies this Court’s Lugar test to demonstrate “state action” under 42 . : US.C. § 1983. 2. Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied this Court’s precedent in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982). ; 3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred by requiring Petitioner to provide actual proof of “state action” — under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by issuing what in effect is a fact finding—that the email was a “purely private ; act”—and in so finding, improperly raised Petitioner’s . : burden to allege a plausible claim under this Court’s precedence in Twombly and Iqbal.