Angela Borrell v. Bloomsburg University, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16616

Geisinger Medical Center (private hospital) and Bloomsburg University (public) partnered to run the Nurse Anesthetist Program (NAP): GMC handles clinical training, Bloomsburg handles classroom/theory.
The NAP is governed by a collaboration agreement; GMC policies, including its drug/alcohol policy, apply to NAP students in GMC’s clinical component.
Richer (GMC Bloomsburg joint appointee) directed the clinical component; Ficca (Bloomsburg) oversaw academic side and consulted on termination decisions.
In 2012, Angela Borrell—an NAP student—refused a drug test and was terminated from the NAP; a termination letter was issued on GMC/Bloomsburg stationery.
Borrell filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violation for deprivation of a property interest without pre-deprivation process; the District Court found state-actor liability for GMC and Richer and denied immunity to Ficca; on appeal, the Third Circuit reverses and finds no state-action liability against GMC/Richer and grants Ficca qualified immunity.
The case is remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Geisinger, Richer, and Ficca.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether GMC and Richer acted under color of state law.	Borrell argues Richer’s joint employment with Bloomsburg and the Geisinger–Bloomsburg program make GMC state actors.	GMC and Richer acted to enforce a preexisting hospital policy; joint employment does not convert private action into state action.	GMC and Richer are not state actors; dismissal was not conducted under color of state law.
Whether Ficca is entitled to qualified immunity for her involvement.	Borrell contends Ficca participated in termination in a way that violated clearly established rights.	Ficca reasonably believed Richer was acting within his authority; no clearly established right was violated.	Ficca is entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established right was violated by her involvement.

Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2009) (three tests for state action; nexus must be close and conduct under color of law)
Leshko v. Servis, 423 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2005) (close nexus inquiry to treat private action as state action)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (state action requires state involvement in the particular conduct)
Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) (government involvement not established by private employment alone)
Crissman v. Dover Downs Entm’t Inc., 289 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2002) (causal link for state action must be shown)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity standard for officials)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (standard to grant/deny qualified immunity using discretionary approach)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (principles for qualified immunity test (noting sequence may be altered))
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (actions in ambit of non-state pursuits excluded from state action)
Zaloga v. Borough of Moosic, 841 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2016) (clear-established-right inquiry in qualified immunity)
McLaughlin v. Watson, 271 F.3d 566 (3d Cir. 2001) (authority and liability standards for supervisory conduct)
Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) (due process in academic dismissals; procedural entitlement)