Case: 17-11518 Date Filed: 04/27/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11518
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cv-00264-KOB-SGC
JOE NATHAN GILES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CRIME STOPPERS OF BIRMINGHAM ALA.,
JEFFERSON COUNTY OWNER OF CRIME STOPPER CARE OF COMPANY
UNION,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(April 27, 2018)
Case: 17-11518 Date Filed: 04/27/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joe Nathan Giles, an Alabama prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the sua
sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, against Crime Stopper of
Birmingham Alabama/Jefferson County and Company Union/Crime Stopper of
Birmingham, Alabama/Jefferson County (“Crime Stoppers”). On appeal, Giles
argues that the district court erred in dismissing Giles’s § 1983 complaint for
failing to identify a state actor in his complaint.
We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr.,
254 F.3d
1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001). The allegations in the complaint must be taken as
true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, and in the case of a pro se action, we
construe the complaint more liberally than we would formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Powell v. Lennon,
914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990).
Only in rare circumstances can a private party be viewed as a state actor for
purposes of § 1983. Rayburn v. Houge,
241 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001). “To
hold that private parties . . . are state actors, [we] must conclude that one of the
following three conditions is met: (1) the State has coerced or at least significantly
encouraged the action alleged to violate the Constitution (“State compulsion test”);
(2) the private parties performed a public function that was traditionally the
2
Case: 17-11518 Date Filed: 04/27/2018 Page: 3 of 3
exclusive prerogative of the State (“public function test”); or (3) “the State had so
far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with the private parties that
it was a joint participant in the enterprise.”
Id.
The district court did not err in dismissing Giles’s complaint for failure to
state a claim for which relief can be granted. Crime Stoppers is not a state actor
and Giles has not argued any facts that would support a finding that it fell under
one of the three circumstances that would, for § 1983, allow it to be viewed as
such. Therefore, Crime Stopper is not a proper defendant for a § 1983 claim.
AFFIRMED.
3
