# West v. Atkins > Supreme Court of the United States · June 20, 1988 · 487 U.S. 42 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431379 ## Case - **Full name:** West v. Atkins - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 20, 1988 - **Citations:** 487 U.S. 42; 56 U.S.L.W. 4664; 108 S. Ct. 2250; 101 L. Ed. 2d 40; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2744 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia - **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Rehnquist, Scalia, White - **Cited by:** 17,506 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431379 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that an individual is -1181 acting under color of state law when he is exercising his responsibilities pursuant to state law - concluding that injury caused by state action was compounded because it occurred in a courthouse - finding a private physician a state actor where 27 5 Defendant does not dispute that he was employed by Pinal County, as the pleadings 28 seem to indicate; instead, he argues only that Plaintiff’s claims against him fail because Plaintiff did not explicitly allege that he was … - finding physician directly "employed by North Carolina to provide medical services to state prison inmates” a state actor, but emphasizing that "[t]he correctional setting ... inevitably affects the exercise of professional judgment,” because "the nonmedical functions of priso… - finding that, even where a State employed a physician pursuant to a contractual arrangement, the physician’s actions were nonetheless deemed state action because “[i]t is the physician’s function within the state system, not the precise terms of his employment, that determines… ## Opinion text Justice Scalia, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I agree with the opinion of the Court that respondent acted under color of state law for purposes of § 1988. I do not believe that a doctor who lacks supervisory or other penological duties can inflict “punishment” within the meaning of that term in the Eighth Amendment. Cf. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F. 2d 1028, 1031-1032 (CA2) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied sub nom. John v. Johnson, 414 U. S. 1033 (1973). I am also of the view, however, that a physician who acts on behalf of the State to provide needed medical attention to a person involuntarily in state custody (in prison or elsewhere) and prevented from otherwise obtaining it, and who causes physical harm to such a person by deliberate indifference, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against the deprivation of liberty without due process. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, 315, 324 (1982) (dictum); see generally Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327, 331 (1986); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 672-674 , and n. 41 (1977); Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 169-174 (1952); Johnson, supra, at 1032-1033. I note that petitioner’s pro se complaint merely claimed violation of his rights, and it is the courts that have specified which constitutional provision confers those rights. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431379. Public record. Not legal advice.