Ronald Jones v. Christ Town Ministries

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Ronald David Jones. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-12834

Date Filed: 10/28/2016

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-12834
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cv-00110-WS-CAS

RONALD DAVID JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHRIST TOWN MINISTRIES,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(October 28, 2016)
Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-12834

Date Filed: 10/28/2016

Page: 2 of 3

Ronald David Jones, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the
dismissal of his amended complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure
to state a claim. On appeal, Jones argues that the district court erred in dismissing
his amended complaint, which alleged that Christ Town Ministries intentionally
failed to send his internship paperwork to Grand Canyon University because of his
race and religious beliefs, thereby violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment
Rights.
Section 1983 does not create substantive rights, but instead “provides a
remedy for deprivations of federal statutory and constitutional rights.” Almand v.
DeKalb Cty., Ga., 103 F.3d 1510, 1512 (11th Cir. 1997). A plaintiff suing under
§ 1983 must show that he was deprived of a federal statutory or constitutional right
by a person acting “under color of state law.” Focus on the Family v. Pinellas
Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1276–77 (11th Cir. 2003). Section 1983
does not apply to purely private conduct, but it can apply to the actions of private
actors if: (1) the actor performed a function that is traditionally the exclusive
prerogative of the state; (2) the state has coerced or significantly encouraged the
action taken by the private party; or (3) the state has such a relationship of
interdependence with the private actor that it was a joint participant in the action.
Id. at 1277.

2

Case: 16-12834

Date Filed: 10/28/2016

Page: 3 of 3

Jones’s amended complaint failed to show that Christ Town Ministries was a
state actor, or allege facts that would satisfy any of the three methods by which a
private actor can be deemed to have acted under color of state law. Focus on the
Family, 344 F.3d at 1276-77. Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing
Jones’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
AFFIRMED.

3