Holloway v. Steve Harris Imports, 671 F. App'x 723

Plaintiff Steven E. Holloway filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights complaint in the District of Utah naming various private entities and individuals.
The district court issued an order identifying deficiencies: defendants appeared to be private actors, no affirmative links between defendants and constitutional violations, and fantastical/frivolous allegations.
Holloway filed an amended complaint; the matter was referred to a magistrate judge for screening and a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) for lack of state action, failure to state a claim, and frivolousness.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court for substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the named defendants acted under color of state law (state action)	Holloway sought relief under § 1983 against the named defendants (claims implying constitutional violations)	Defendants are private parties not alleged to have acted under authority or color of law; § 1983 reaches only state action	Court held the complaint failed to allege state action and § 1983 claims against private actors were deficient
Whether the complaint sufficiently linked specific defendants to constitutional violations	Holloway alleged entitlement to money from defendants and asserted harms	Complaint did not affirmatively link who did what to whom; allegations were vague and conclusory	Court held Holloway failed to plead factual allegations tying defendants to violations (failure to state a claim)
Whether portions of the complaint were frivolous	Holloway maintained his claims despite earlier deficiencies	District court/magistrate characterized parts of the complaint as fantastical and frivolous	Court agreed portions appeared frivolous and supported dismissal as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
Whether dismissal with prejudice under § 1915(e) was appropriate	Holloway implicitly argued amended complaint cured defects	Magistrate and district court concluded defects persisted and dismissal was warranted	Court affirmed dismissal with prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) after de novo review

Conkle v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1333 (10th Cir.) (discusses review standards for dismissals under § 1915(e) and interplay between frivolousness and failure-to-state-a-claim review)