Younger v. Smith et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 7/17/13. (c/m apls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
KEVIN J. YOUNGER,
Plaintiff

*
*

v.

Civil Action No. ELH-13-1931
*

WARREN SMITH, et al.,
Defendants

*
******
MEMORANDUM

In this action under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, plaintiff Kevin Younger, who is self-represented,
alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by defendants Warren Smith and Daniel Andrew
Riesmeyer, employees of Utrecht Art Supply, also named as a defendant. Complaining that
defendants improperly identified him as the perpetrator of an armed robbery, plaintiff seeks a
monetary award. ECF No. 1.1 Because he appears indigent, plaintiff=s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) shall be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a). However, for the
reasons set forth below, dismissal of the complaint is appropriate.
In order to successfully assert a claim based on violation of constitutional rights, the
defendant must be a state actor. Specifically, the person or persons charged with the civil rights
violation must be a state official; someone who has acted with a state official; someone who has
obtained significant aid from a state official; or someone whose conduct is somehow attributable to
the state. None of the named defendants are state officials, nor does the conduct described by
plaintiff have the imprimatur of official conduct.

1

The status of these charges is unclear . See
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquirySearch.jis

In limited circumstances, seemingly private conduct can be the subject of a '1983 suit. The
Fourth Circuit has “recognized four exclusive circumstances under which a private party can be
deemed to be a state actor: (1) when the state has coerced the private actor to commit an act that
would be unconstitutional if done by the state; (2) when the state has sought to evade a clear
constitutional duty through delegation to a private actor; (3) when the state has delegated a
traditionally and exclusively public function to a private actor; or (4) when the state has committed
an unconstitutional act in the course of enforcing a right of a private citizen.” DeBauche v. Trani,
191 F. 3d 499, 507 (4th Cir. 1999). None of the acts or conduct alleged by plaintiff in his complaint
fall within these four categories of conduct. “If the conduct does not fall into one of these four
categories, then the private conduct is not an action of the state.” Andrews v. Federal Home Loan
Bank of Atlanta, 998 F.2d 214, 217 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the civil rights claims plaintiff
asserts against defendants must be dismissed, without prejudice.
A separate Order follows.

7/17/13
Date

/s
Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge