Tsarelka v. Dana

USCA1 Opinion









November 2, 1992

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




____________________


No. 92-1738

LISA TSARELKA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE,

Defendant-Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Selya and Cyr,
Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Lisa Tsarelka on brief pro so.
_____________


____________________


____________________

















Per Curiam. Appellant Lisa Tsarelka filed an
__________

action in the United States District Court for the District

of Massachusetts against the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

("Dana-Farber"). After granting in forma pauperis status to

appellant, the district court dismissed the complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(d).1 It first held that Dana-

Farber did not qualify as a state actor for purposes of 42

U.S.C. 1983. Second, it stated that appellant could not

base her complaint on 42 U.S.C. 1981 because she had not

alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis

of race. We affirm.

BACKGROUND
__________

In her complaint, appellant asserts that on October

6, 1988 and July 13, 1989, she "suffered medical neglect and

abuse, both verbal and upon her person" at the Breast

Evaluation Clinic at Dana-Farber. Specifically, she claims

that she did not receive any medical evaluation on the above

dates. On July 13, she avers, she was subjected to "cruel

and unusual physical brutality" which was known to and

sanctioned by two Dana-Farber physicians. As a result of

this conduct, appellant's arthritic condition allegedly

became aggravated. Further, she states, the staff refused to

provide her with a neck brace or to avert, in any other way,





____________________

1. Section 1915(d) provides, in pertinent part: "The court .
. . may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is
untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or
malicious."















the pain she was experiencing. She also claims that Dana-

Farber refused to bill Medicaid for the costs of her medical

care. As relief, she requested compensatory damages for loss

of physical function and for the pain and suffering she

endured; she also asked for punitive damages.2

DISCUSSION
__________

A. The 1983 Claim
________________

"It is black-letter law that a showing of

interference with a constitutionally-protected right by

someone acting under color of state law is a prerequisite to

a 1983 action." Malachowski v. City of Keene, 787 F.2d
___________ _____________

704, 710 (1st Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 828
____________

(1986). That is, 1983 does not reach private conduct.

Mendez v. Belton, 739 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1984). The
______ ______

action of a private party may be treated as that of the state

only where there is a "sufficiently close nexus between the

State and the challenged action" of the private defendant.

See Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351
___ _______ ________________________

(1974). "In short, the party seeking to establish that


____________________

2. Before filing the federal action, appellant had initiated
an action in the Suffolk Superior Court against Dana-Farber
on July 17, 1989. The court allowed her to proceed in forma
pauperis and subsequently referred the matter to a medical
malpractice tribunal. See M.G.L.c. 231, 60B. After a
___
hearing at which appellant did not appear, the tribunal found
in favor of Dana-Farber. The court reduced the amount of the
bond necessary to pursue her action in the state court. When
appellant failed to file the bond, the court dismissed the
case on February 7, 1992. Appellant did not pursue any state
appellate remedies.

-3-















action of a private party violated the Constitution must be

able to point to the specific act or actions of the

government which in fact motivated the private action."

Gerena v. Puerto Rico Legal Services, Inc., 697 F.2d 447, 450
______ ________________________________

(1st Cir. 1983).

Here, the only claim appellant makes is that the

receipt of public funds by Dana-Farber renders it a state

actor for purposes of 1983. It has been clear since 1982,

however, that the receipt of state funding, without more,

does not convert a private defendant's conduct into state

action. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 52 n.10 (1988)
___ ____ ______

(citing Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) and Rendell-
____ ________ ________

Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)).
_____ ____

For example, in Mendez we addressed the claim of a
______

physician who alleged that a private hospital had

discriminated against her based on sex and race in revoking

her staff privileges. We held that she failed to demonstrate

that the hospital had acted under color of state law even

though it was extensively regulated by the state, received

federal assistance under the Hill-Burton program, received

financial support through annual appropriations from the

Puerto Rico legislature, and received Medicaid and Medicare

funds. Mendez, 739 F.2d at 17-18.
______

Essentially, what appellant is alleging here is

that medical decisions made by the "purely private" staff of



-4-















a "purely private" hospital caused her harm. See Spencer v.
___ _______

Lee, 864 F.2d 1376, 1377-78 (7th Cir. 1989) (decision to
___

commit a mentally ill individual by private doctor and

hospital not made under color of state law), cert. denied,
_____________

494 U.S. 1016 (1990). In Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991
____ ________

(1982), the Supreme Court held that decisions which

"ultimately turn on medical judgments made by private parties

according to professional standards that are not established

by the State" are not the equivalent of state action. Id. at
___

1008-09. Although such allegations may state a viable action

for medical malpractice, there is no question that, absent

state action, they cannot suffice to state a claim under

1983.

B. The 1981 Claim
________________

Section 1981 forbids "all 'racial' discrimination
______

in the making of private as well as public contracts." Saint
_____

Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 609 (1987)
________________ ___________

(emphasis added). As the district court correctly pointed

out, appellant "has not alleged one fact in support of a

claim of discrimination based on race. . . ." Memorandum and

Order at 3. Rather, she alleges discrimination on the basis

of wealth. Such a claim may not be brought under 1981.

CONCLUSION
__________

Under Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), a
_______ ________

district court may dismiss an action as frivolous under



-5-















1915(d) if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact." Id. at 325. An action that lacks a basis in law is
___

one that is premised on an "indisputably meritless legal

theory." Id. at 327. As the above discussion demonstrates,
___

the law at the time appellant filed her complaint clearly

prohibited the type of civil rights claims she asserted

against Dana-Farber. Even assuming, however, that there was

some "arguable" foundation for her claim, appellant had the

opportunity to correct the deficiencies listed in the

district court's order of dismissal. Specifically, in her

motion for reconsideration, she responds, point by point, to

the reasons the district court gave for determining that her

complaint was frivolous. Cf. Purvis v. Ponte, 929 F.2d 822,
___ ______ _____

826-27 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (where pro se plaintiff

had opportunity to respond to magistrate's report and

recommendation before district court dismissed his complaint,

he received the "'practical protections'" required by

Neitzke).
_______

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
________















-6-