The Plaintiff in this action appealed a federal district
court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights complaint. Plaintiff had
sued a private hospital and a number of its employees [Respondents] for
allegedly for violating her constitutional rights while involuntarily
hospitalizing and medicating her.
A federal district court had dismissed Plaintiff's amended
complaint as she failed to plead that Respondents were acting under color
of state law and denied further leave to amend her complaint as futile.*
Reviewing a dismissal of a cause of action for
failure to state a claim the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals said it assumed "all well-pleaded
allegations in the operative complaint are true and draw every reasonable
inference in the plaintiff’s favor," citing N.Y. Pet Welfare Ass’n, Inc.
v. City of New York, 850 F.3d 79.
Further, observing that Plaintiff brought
this action pro se, the Circuit Court pointed out that although pro se filings “must
be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that
they suggest,” a pro se complaint "must
still state a 'plausible claim for relief' to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss."
Agreeing with the district court that Plaintiff’s complaint,
which was premised on alleged constitutional violations by private parties, failed to
demonstrate that Respondents were acting under color of state law, the Circuit
Court explained that state action “requires both the exercise of some right or
privilege created by the State and the involvement of a person who may fairly
be said to be a State actor.” As a result, opined the Circuit Court, "a §1983
claim against a private actor will usually fail because private actors do not act
under the color of state law, no matter how 'discriminatory or wrongful' their conduct
might be."
The Circuit Court's decision notes that Plaintiff did not
allege that the Defendants were state actors and "did not press any
meaningful argument to that end on appeal". Although Plaintiff focused on
the alleged severity and illegality of the Respondents' alleged misconduct, the
Circuit Court said "even egregious acts cannot form the basis of a §1983
claim unless the defendant is also acting under color of state law."
Accordingly, the Circuit Court held the district court
correctly dismissed Plaintiff's complaint and so doing "with prejudice"
was also proper.
* See Alicea v. Yang, No. 21-CV-1638 (KAD), 2022
WL 2527994.
Click HERE to access the Second Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.