Mayo v. Wetzel, 3:13-cv-01174

Mayo, an inmate, filed a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in May 2013, later amended in October 2013, alleging Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement and First Amendment retaliation.
The amended complaint named numerous defendants, including two private individuals, McCallum and Dimascio of the Pennsylvania Prison Society.
Mayo claimed McCallum met with him and dismissed his claims; Dimascio, via the Society, took no further action after Mayo’s complaints.
The case was screened because Mayo proceeds in forma pauperis; the court reassigned the case to the undersigned for initial screening.
The court recommended dismissing the private-party defendants, McCallum and Dimascio, from the action.
The recommendation notes that private individuals cannot be held liable under §1983 absent state action, and the complaint fails to state a cognizable federal claim against these defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can Mayo sue private persons under §1983?	Mayo contends private actors violated his federal rights.	Private parties are not liable under §1983 absent state action.	Dismissal of McCallum and Dimascio with prejudice.
Does the complaint state a cognizable §1983 claim against private defendants?	Allegations against McCallum and Dimascio show rights violations by private parties.	No state action; private parties cannot be sued under §1983.	No cognizable claim; claims against private defendants dismissed.
Does Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard permit amendment to cure the pleadings against private defendants?	Amendment should cure deficiencies; factual basis exists.	Amendment would be futile given lack of state action and pleaded facts.	Leave to amend futile; dismissal with prejudice as to Dimascio and McCallum.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must plead plausible claims, not mere speculation)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (threadbare recitals of the elements insufficient)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (exemplifies inquiry into constitutional rights and actions under color of law)
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1994) (§1983 requires deprivation of rights by persons acting under color of state law)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (elements of a §1983 action include color of law and deprivation of rights)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (private attorneys generally not state actors for §1983 purposes)
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1981) (attorneys acting in their professional role generally not state actors)
American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1999) (reaffirms standard for asserting §1983 claims and pleading requirements)
Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2007) (pleading standard and plausibility framework in Third Circuit)
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004) (permit amendment unless futile or delayed)