holding that a district court’s finding that a private actor “was a willful participant in a joint activity” with a public entity was insufficient to meet the state action requirement, because the analysis must focus on whether the specific action was “fairly attributable to the state”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a district court’s finding that a private actor “was a willful participant in a joint activity” with a public entity was insufficient to meet the state action requirement, because the analysis must focus on whether the specific action was “fairly attributable to the state”
- concluding that, in order to support a finding of state action, “the government must be ‘responsible for the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains.’” (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982))
- stating that if a private entity exercises powers that are “traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state” it is a state actor (citation omitted)
- to determine if the defendant is a state actor, the issue is whether there is “such a close nexus between the State and the challenged action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge Roth,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
In regard to Part III.B, I would hold that Ficca and Bloomsburg University’s participation in the dismissal of Borrell from the program was academic, not disciplinary. Although Borrell’s academic marks were satisfactory, once she had been dismissed from the elinical portion of *164 the NAP program by Geisinger, she was no longer academically qualified to complete the NAP.' For that reason, she was not being dismissed from the Bloomsburg University portion of the program because she refused to take the drug test. She was being dismissed because.she was no longer academically eligible to complete the pro.gram. Clearly, this action is academic, rather than disciplinary.
Moreover, because Ficca and Blooms-burg University’s action in dismissing Bor-rell from the program was not disciplinary, she in fact received all the due process to which she was entitled. See, e.g., Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 85 , 98 S.Ct. 948 , 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978).