2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
9-9-2005 

# Leshk o v . S e rvi s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2610

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" L e shko v . S e r vi s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 484. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/484P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 2610

KAR E N M
. L E S HKO, A ppel l ant

v. GR EG SERV I S; J UD Y M
. SERVI S; DA UPH I N C OU NTY

SOCI AL SERV I CES FOR CH I LDR EN A ND YO UTH ; SAN DR A M OO RE,

A g en cyD ir ec tor, D auphi n C ount ySoci al Ser vi ces forC hi l dr en and Y outh; D A U PH I N C O U N T Y ; R I C K W Y N N , H um an Servi ces

D ire c to r, D a u p h in C o u n ty ; JE F F R E Y H A S T E , D au p h in C o u n tyC o m m issi o n er; L O W M A N H E N R Y , D au p h in C o u n tyC o m m issi o n er;

A N T H O N Y P E T R U C C I, D a u p h in C ount yC om m i s s i oner2 _______________ O n a p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 03- cv- 00889 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane

_______________ A r gued A pr i l 1, 2005

_______________ B e f o re : A L IT O , S M IT H , a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges

.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember9, 2005)

__________________ J os eph M

. Far r el l ( ar gued) 201/ 203 S. R ai l r oad Str eet P. O
. B ox 113 Pal m yr a, PA 17078- 0113 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant D avi d P. K ar amess i ni s ( ar gued) W i l l i am J. D evl i n, J r . & A s s oci at es Sui t e 1500 M arketSt r eet , Sui t e 2920 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ees

___________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________________-3- S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge

. W e wea v e o u rwa yi n t h i s a p p e a l t h r o u g h t h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s l abyr inthi ne s t at e ac t i on j ur i s prudence

. T he ques t i on pr es ent ed i s w hetherfos t erpar ent s ar e st at e ac t or s forpurpos es o f liab ili tyu n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . W e h o ld th a t th e ya re n o t. I. A. W h e n a p p e llan t K a re n M . L e sh k o w a s tw o -a n d -a -h a lf y e a rs o ld , h e r f

o ste r m o th e r, ap p e llee Ju d yS e rv is, p lac e d h e r in the k it ch en s i nk of the Servi s hom e t o w as h her

. N extt o the s i nk w as a l ar ge pot of exce edi ngl y hot w at er . Ser vi s l eft t he r oom . L i t t l e K ar en pull ed the potoveron her s el f, s us t ai ni ng s ever e burns acr os s m uch of herabdomen, l egs and mi d- s ect i on. N eit herSer vi s norherhus band s oughtm edi cal t r eatm entfor K aren for m ore than t w el ve h ou rs . W hen s he turned ei ght een, K ar en (“ L es hko”) s ued D auphi n C o u n ty( Penns y l vani a) Soci al Ser vi ces forC hi l dr en and Y out h, D auphi n C ount y , and var i ous C ount y offi ci al s under § 1 9 8 3 f o r d e p riv in g h e r o f h e r F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to be fr ee f r om phy s i cal harm , and unders t at e negl i gence and cons t i tut i onal t heor i es . L es hko al s o s ued the Servi s es , al l egi ng li ab il ityu n d er § 1 9 8 3 a n d stat e tort l aw . T h e D istri ct C o u rt-4- d i s mi s s e d t h e c o mp l a i n ti n i t s e n t i r e t y f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. L es hko appea l s onl y t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of her§ 1983 cl ai m agai ns tt he Servi s es , i nas m uch as the C our t hel d t hatthe S e rv is e s w e re n o t s ta te a c to rs . B. L es hko w as pl ace d i n the Servi s hom e i n 1985 byt he D auphi n C ount ySoci al Ser v ices for Chi l dr en and Y outh aft er bei ng r emoved fr om her m other

. T he r ecor d r evea l s nei t herthe r eas on forL es hko’ s r emoval , norw hetherL es hko’ s m other c o n se n ted to th e re m o v a l. T h e la w s g o v e rn in g f o ste r c a re in P e n n sy lv a n ia a re su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e to d a y as th e yw e re in 1985. A chi l d i n Penns y l vani a ca n be pl ace d i n fos t ercar e af t er b e in g a d ju d ica ted a “ d e p e n d e n t ch ild .” 4 2 P a .C .S . § 6 3 5 1 ; In re Fr a n k W. D. , 4 6 2 A .2 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 1 (P a . S u p e r. C t
. 1 9 8 3 ) . A depende ntchi l d in P en n s y l vani a i s one dee m ed bythe C om m onw eal t h t o be aba ndoned, i l l egal l yoffe r ed for ca re or a d o p tio n , o r la c k in g “ p ro p e r p a re n tal c a re o r c o n tro l, s ubs i s t ence , educa t i on as r equi r ed byl aw , orothercar e or contr ol nece s s aryforhi s phy s i cal , m ent al , oremot i onal heal t h, o r m o ra ls.” 4 2 P a .C .S . § 6 3 0 2 ; Ma t te ro f A d o p tio n o f J . S . H ., 445 A
. 2d 162, 164 ( Pa. Super
. C t
. 1982)

. Fost ercar e i s nott he onl yopt ion a vai l abl e fordepende ntchi l dr en; a courtm i ght a ltern a tiv e lyo rd e r a d e p e n d e n t ch ild to re m a in w ith h is p a re n ts orguar di an undercour ts upervi s i on, be tr ans ferr ed t o the cus t odyof an author i zed pr i vat e or gani zat i on, orbe tr ans ferr ed to th e c u s to d yo f

a n a u th o ri z e d p u b lic a g e n c y . 4 2 P a . C .S . §T he D i s t r i ctC ou rt had j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s cas e under28 1 U
. S. C
. §§ 1331, 1343. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overt he D i s t r i ct Co u r t ’ s o r d e rd i s mi s s i n g L e s h k o ’ s c o mp l a i n tu n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 9 1
. O u rr e v i e w o f

s u c h d i s m i s s a l s i s p l e n a r y. W heelerv. H a m p to n T o w n sh ip , 3 9 9 F .3 d 2 3 8 , 2 4 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

-5- 6 3 5 1 ; In re L o w ry , 4 8 4 A .2 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 5 -8 6 (P a . 1 9 8 4 ). S tate r egul at i ons govern t he fos t er car e r el at i ons hi p, and governm ent f u n d in g is p ro v id e d

. See 3 5 P a . C o d e § 3 7 0 0 ; I n r e Adopt i on of Cr y s ta lD. R. , 4 8 0 A
. 2 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 0 (P a. S u p er. C t. 1 9 8 4 ). A ppar ent l yfort he fi r s tt i m e, a Penns y l vani a cour t hel d i n 2002 t hat fost er pare nts i n P enn sy l van i a are coun t y“em ploy ees” underPenns y l vani a’ s Pol i t i cal Subdi vi s i on T or t C l ai m s A ct , 42 P a .C .S . § 8 5 0 1
. P a tterso n v . L y c o m in gC o u n ty , 815 A
. 2d 659, 6 6 1 (P a. C o m m w . C t. 2 0 0 2 ). 1
II. T h e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t p ro v id e s th a t “[ n ]o S tate s hal l

. . . depr i ve anyper s on of l i fe, l i ber t y , or pr oper t y , w i t hout du e pr oc e s s of l a w . . . . ” U
. S. C ONST . am e n d . X IV , § 1 . T h is A m e n d m e n t g o v e rn s o n lysta te a c tio n , n o t th e a c tio n s o f p riv a te c itiz e n s o r o rg a n iz a tio n s . R endel l

- B aker v. Kohn , 457 U
. S. 830, 837- 38 ( 1982) ( ci t i ng, i nt eral i a, C i vi lR ight s C as es , 109 U
. S. 3, 11 ( 1883) )

. Sect i on 1983 s ubj ect s t o l i abi l i t y t hos e w ho depr i ve per s ons of fede r al cons t i tut i onal or s t atut ory r i ght s “undercol or of an y stat ut e, or di nance , r egul at i on, cus t om , orus age” of a s ta te
. See 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983. W e cons i der act i ons “undercol or-6- o f law ” a s the e q u iv a len t o f “ sta te a c tio n ” u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. R endel l

- B aker , 4 5 7 U .S . at 8 3 8 ; B enn v. U ni ver s al Hea l th S y s . , I nc ., 37 1 F
. 3d 16 5, 16 9 n
. 1 (3d C i r. 20 04 ). T hu s, t o s t at e a clai m of l i abi l i t yunder§ 1983, L es hko m us tal l ege that sh e w as d ep ri v ed o f a f e d era l con sti tuti o n al or statutory ri g h t b y a st ate ac to r. S ee B enn , 371 F. 3d at169- 70. T he Ser vi s es conce de thatL es hko al l eges a depr i vati o n o f a co n sti tution al ri g h t, as th eym u st un d er Ni ci ni v. Morra , 212 F. 3d 798, 810 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( en banc) ( hol di ng t hata s t at e may be l i abl e forconductt ow ar d fos t erchi l dr en that“s hock[s ] t he cons ci ence ”) , s o t hi s appea l turns s ol el yon w hethert he Servi s es are s t at e act ors. Supr eme C our tcas es under t he F our t eenth A m endment draw no “si m ple l i ne” b e tw een st at es and p ri vate pers on s. B ren tw o o d A c a d

. v. T

en n esse e S ec o n da ry S ch

. A thleti c A ss’n , 5 3 1 U .S . 2 8 8 , 2 9 5 (2 0 0 1 ). T h e p rin c ip a l q u e stio n a t s ta k e is w hethert her e i s “s uch a ‘ cl os e nexus betw een the St at e and the chal l enged a ct i on’ t hats eemi ngl ypr i vat e beh avi or‘ m aybe fai r l y t r eat ed as t hatof the St at e i t s el f. ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng Jack s on v. Metr o. E dis on C o. , 419 U
. S. 345, 3 5 1 (1974))

. Fol l ow i ng t he Supr eme C our t ’ s gui dance forans w er i ng t hatexpans i ve q u e s t i o n , we a t t e mp t t o a l i g n t h e c a s e a th a n d wi t h th e S u p r e me C o u r t c a s e m o s t f

a c tu a lly a k in to it. See Rober tS. v. St et s on Sch. , I nc ., 2 5 6 F .3 d 1 5 9 , 1 6 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); B r entw ood A cad. , 5 3 1 U
. S
. at295 ( not i ng that“a hos tof fa ct s ” ca n bearon t he fai rnes s of att r i but i ng act i on t o t he s t at e an d co u ns el i ng that “[ a]m idst suc h v ariety , ex am p les m ayb e th e be st t ea ch ers” ). In-7- a d h e r i n g t o t h a ta p p r o a c h , “ f a c t s a r e c ru c i al

. ” C r is s m an v. D over D ow ns E ntm ’t

C orp . , 289 F. 3 d 231, 234 ( 3d C i r . 2002) (en b an c). St at e ac t i on case s br oadl ydi vi de i nt o tw o fac tual c a te g o ri e s . See Bre ntw ood A cad. , 5 3 1 U .S. at29 6. T he fir st cat egory i nvol ves an a c tivity t hat i s s i gni fi cant l y encour aged by th e s ta te o r i n w h ic h th e s ta te a c ts a s a j o in t p a rt ic ip a n t. See B l um v. Y

ar et s ky , 4 5 7 U .S . 9 9 1 (1 9 8 2 ) (h o ld in g sta te a c tio n to b e p re se n t w h e re th e sta te p ro v id e s “ sig n if ica n t en c o u ra g e m e n t, e ith e r o v e rt o r c o v e rt” f

o r th e a c tiv ity ); L u g a r v . E dm o n d so n O il C o. , 457 U
. S. 922, 941 ( 1982) ( hol di ng s t at e act i on t o be pr es ent w h ere pr i vat e ci t i zen e m pl oy ed cha l l enged s t at e pr ej udgm ent att ac h m en t pro ce ss, th u s p arti cipa ti n g in the stat e ’s a cti o n ). D et erm i ni ng s t at e ac t i on i n s uch ca s es r equi res t r aci ng t he act i vi t yt o i t s s our ce t o s ee i f thats our ce f ai r l ycan be s ai d t o be th e st a te. T h e q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e f in g e rp rin ts o f

th e sta te ar e on the ac t i vi t yi t s el f. T he s econd c at egoryof ca s es i nvol ves an actor th a t is contr o ll ed b yt he s t at e, per form s a func t i on del egat ed byt he sta te, o r is e n tw in e d w ith g o v e rn m e n t p o licie s o r m a n a g e m e n t. S e e P e n n sy lva n ia v . B d

. o f D ir. o f C ity T ru sts o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 3 5 3 U .S . 2 3 0 , 2 3 1 (1 9 5 7 ) (p e r c u ria m ) (h o ld in g p riv a te or gani zat i on t o be s t at e ac t orw her e the or gani zat i on w as c o n tro lled b ya sta te a g e n c y ); W es tv. A tki ns , 487 U
. S. 42, 56 ( 1988) ( hol di ng pr i vat e doct ort o be s t at e ac t orw her e, in an i ns t i tut i onal cont ext , h e per form ed a f unct i on t r adi t i onal l yandW e of c our s e do nots ugges tthata s ucce s s ful s how i ng under 2 o n e o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s ac to r-c e n ter e d c a se s m a k e s a p riv a te i ndi vi dual orent i t yan al l

- purpos e s t at e ac t or . A s w e have e x p lain e d , w h ile o u r a n a lytic a l a p p ro a c h in su c h c a se s s tar ts w i t h t he ac t or( as oppos ed t o t he ac t i on) w e neve r t hel es s cannot r es ol ve t he st at e act i on ques t i on w i t houtfi nal l yal s o cons i der i ng th e “ n e x u s b e tw e e n th e s ta te a n d th e c h a lle n g e d a c tio n .” B r entw ood A cad ., 5 3 1 U
. S
. at 28 8 (qu o tat ion o m itted). D i s t i ngui s hi ng betw een the ac t or - cent er ed, vers us act i onc e n ter e d , ap p ro a c h e s to f in d in g sta te a c tio n is th u s a n e f f o rt to s peed i dent i fi cat i on of the m o st p r om i s i ng anal yt i cal poi ntof departur e, nott o pr e- s el ectourdes t i nat i on. -8- e x c lu siv e lyre se rv e d to th e sta te) ; B r entw ood A cad. , 531 U
. S. at 298 ( hol di ng os t ens ibly pr i vat e as s oci at i on t o be s t at e ac t or beca us e of the “pe r vas i ve entw i n e me n to f p ubl i c i ns t i tut i ons and p u b lic o f

f icia ls in its c o m p o sitio n a n d w o rk in g s ” ); see al so B ur t on v. W

i lm i ngt on P arki ng A uth. , 365 U
. S. 715, 724 ( 1961) (ho lding p ri v ate b u sine ss to b e state a ctor w h ere there w ere “mut ual benef

i t s ” betw een the s t at e and the bus i nes s). D et erm i ni ng s tat e ac ti on i n thi s cat egoryof ca s es cons i s t s of as ki ng w hethert he ac t ori s s o i nt egr al l yr el at ed t o t he s t at e that i ti s fai rt o i m put e t o t he st at e re s pons i bi l i t y fort he ac t i on. T he ques t i on her e i s w hethert he s t ate so ide nt i fi es w i t h t he i n d i v i d u a l ( o re n t i t y ) wh o t o o k t h e c h a l l e n g e d a c t i o n t h a twe deem t he s t at e’ s fi ngerpr i nt s t o have be en on the ac t i on. 2 A.-9- W e see n o al l egat i on i n L es hko’ s compl ai ntthatthe C om m on w eal t h o f P enn sy l van i a con do ned t he S ervi ses’ deci s i ons t o l eave L es hko s i t t i ng unat t ended ne xtt o a potof hot w at erand nott o s eek i m m edi at e medi cal at t en ti o n , l etal one s i gni fi cant l yencour aged orpar t i ci pat ed i n them

. T o t he c o n tr a r y , the g e n e ra l ru le in P e n n sy lv a n ia is th a t co u rts s h o u ld di r ectdepende ntchi l dr en t o the cus t ody of the per s on or o rg a n iza tio n “ b e st s u ited to th e sa f e ty , p ro tec tio n a n d p h y sic a l, m en tal , an d m o ral w elfa re o f th e c h il d

. ” 42 P a.C
. S
. § 6 3 5 1 (a); In re Low ry , 4 8 4 A .2 d a t 3 8 5
. L e sh k o n o tes th a t P e n n sy lv a n ia co m p reh en sive lyreg u lat e s fo ster care , an d fu n d s tha t care tog ethe r w ith it s co u n ti es, an d ask s tha t w e the ref o re inf er a s uffi ci ent l y“cl os e nexus ” betw een the Servi s es and Penns y l vani a thatw e dee m t hei rdeci s i ons t o be the C om m onw eal t h’ s . B utt he Supr eme C our tr epea t edl yhas re je c te d th a t a rg u m e n t, see, e. g. , A m eri can Man ufac tu rers Mut ualI

ns ur ance Co. v. Sul l i van , 526 U
. S. 40, 5 2 ( 1999) (ho lding that “[ a]c ti o n take n b yp ri v ate e n ti ti es w ith the m ere appr oval oracqui es cenc e of the St at e i s nots t at e ac t i on”) , as have w e, s ee, e. g. , C r is s m an , 289 F. 3d at 2 4 4 (hol di ng t hat det ai l ed re gul at i on and r ece i ptof s t at e funds , w i t houtm or e, do not cr eat e s t at e act i on) ( quot at i on om i t t ed)

. L es hko does not a lleg e th a t P e n n sy lv a n ia f o rc e d o r e n c o u ra g e d , o r jo in tly p arti cipa ted in, the S erv ices’ n eg li g en t beh av ior, an d there fo re s he s t at es no cl ai m of st at e act i on on t he bas i s of s t at e r egul at i onT he F o u rt h C ir cui thas r eac hed the s ame concl us i on on 3 m a te ri a ll y s i m ila r f

a c ts , s ee Milb u rn v . A n n e A ru n d e l C o u n ty D ep ’t o f So c. Se rv’s
. , 871 F. 2d 474, 479 ( 4th C i r . 1989) ( hol di ng t hatfos t erpar ent s w er e nots t at e ac t or s beca us e s t at e “e xer ci s ed no coer ci ve pow erover[fos t erpar ent s ] ; nei t her di d i tencour age th e m ,” p ro m p tin g th e ir to rtio u s c o n d u c t), as h a s th e E lev e n th C irc u it, s ee Raybur n v. H ogue , 2 4 1 F
. 3 d 1 3 4 1 , 1 3 4 8 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ) (sam e). -10- and fundi ng. 3
B. W hi l e Leshko i nvokes t he ful l arr ayof ac tor-cent er ed t heo ri es of s t at e ac t i on, onl yone ar guabl yappl i es t o hercas e. T h e re is n o se n se in w h ich th e S e rv ise s a re a sta te a g e n c ya k in t o the col l ege boa r d i n B oar d of D i r ectors of

C i t y Tr us t s of P h ila d e lp h ia , w hi ch hel d t hat a co ll ege boa r d of di r ect or s w as a s t at e age ncybeca us e, w hi l e pr i vat el ycr eat ed and e ndow ed, the exi s t ence and ac t i vi t yof the boar d w er e author i zed bys t atut e. 353 U
. S. at 230- 31. N or i s any ki nd of entw i nement , pervas i ve o ro t h e r wi s e , a l l e g e d b e t we e n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e S e r v i s h o me a n d p u b lic in s titu tio n s a n d o f f ic ia ls

. See Bre ntw ood A cad

. , 531 U .S . at 2 9 8 . F u rth e r, w e h a v e e x p re ss e d o u r re so lv e to lim it appl i cat i on of B ur t on ’s s o -c a lled sy m b io tic re latio n sh ip tes t to cas es w i t h fac t s r epl i cat i ng B ur t on ’s , s ee C r is s m an , 289 F. 3d at 2 4 2 -4 3 , a n d th is c a s e d o e s n o t te s t th a t r e s o lv e . B ur t on i nvol ved a p riv a te b u sin e ss th a t f u n n e led su b sta n tial f u n d s in to-11- governm entcoff

er s t hr ough a l ucr at i ve l eas e. 365 U
. S. at723- 24. W e r ecogni ze t hatthe Servi s es os t ens i bl ys erved the s t at e, and theyr ece i ved governm entfunds ; s o t her e mayhave be en s o me mu tu a l b e n e f

i t
. But t h a ti s n o te n o u g h

. Th e S u p r e me C our tl ong has t aught“that a pr i vat e ent i t yper form s a func t i on w h ic h s e rv e s th e p u b lic d o e s n o t m a k e i t s a c ts s ta te a c tio n .” R endel l

- B aker , 4 5 7 U .S . a t 8 4 2 . G iv e n th a t n o tan g ib le b e n e f it f lo w e d to P e n n s y lv a n ia th ro u g h th e S e rv is e s , B enn , 371 F. 3d at 173, w e have no occa s i on t o r evive B ur t on . O urfocus thus n a rro w s to w h e th e r th e S e rv ise s w e re d e leg a ted a “ tra d iti o n a lly a n d e x c lu s iv e ly” s ta te f

u n c tio n . Jack

s on , 419 U
. S. at353. T hat i s a cl os erques t i on. 1
. S tat e “ E m p loy ee s” a s S tat e A ctors L es hko w oul d l i ke us to r es ol ve the publ i c func t i on ques t i on i n herfavoron t he s i m ple ground thatunder P e n n s y l v a n i a l a w t h e S e r v i s e s w e r e p u b l i c e m p l o y e e s . We c a n n o t d o so , th o u g h w e a c k n o w led g e th e f o rc e in h e r a rg u m e n t. I n Penns y l vani a, “[a ] ny per s on w ho i s act i ng or w ho has act ed on b eh al f of a governm ent al uni t , w hetheron a perm anentor t empora r ybas i s , w hethercompensa t ed or not , ” i s an empl oy ee of thatgovernm ent al uni t
. 42 Pa. C
. S. § 8501. A s w e not ed e a rl ier, a P en n sy lvan ia ap p ell ate c o u rth as h eld th at un d er § 8501 f o s t e r p a r e n t s a r e e mpl o y e e s o f t h e c o u n t y Chi l d r en and Y o u th S e rv ic e s a g e n c yth a t d e s ig n a te s th e m f o s te r p a re n ts
. See P a tt erson , 815 A
. 2d at661. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed L es hko ’ s t o r tc l a i m a g a i n s tt h e Se r v i s e s i n l i g h to f t h a tcas e,-12- h o lding that the im m u n ityp rov ided b yP en n sy lvan ia’s t o rt cl ai m s st atute appl i ed to the S ervi ses as cou ntyem ploy ees. L e s h k o f

in d s it “ a n o m a lo u s” th a t th e S e rv ise s s u c c e ss f u lly cont ended in the D i s tr i ctC our tt hatt heyar e empl oy ees of the C ount y , and y et cl ai m her e nott o be s t at e ac t or s forpurpos es of lia b ility u n d e r § 1 9 8 3
. W e ac know l edge the s eemi ng heads

- w e-w i n- t ai l s - y oul os e as pectof the Servi s es ’ l i t i gat i on s t r at egy , butt he l aw i s on t hei rs i de. I ti s t rue t hat t he S upr eme C our ti n W est decl ar ed that “s t at e e mpl o yme n ti s gener al l ys uffi ci entt o r enderthe def endant a s t at e ac t or , ” 487 U
. S. at24 ( quot i ng Lugar , 457 U
. S. at935 n .1 8 ), an d o b se rv e d th a t th e o n ly ti m e it h a d h e ld th a t a s tate e m p lo y e e w a s n o t a s tate a c to r w a s in th e c a s e o f a p u b lic d e f e n d e r , w h o w a s t a s k e d w i t h a c t i n g a s th e s t a t e ’ s a d v e r s a r y. Id

. at50 ( ci t i ng P olk C ount y v. D ods on , 454 U
. S. 312, 325 (1 9 8 1 )) . N e v e rt h e le s s , b yits o w n te rm s , W est does notal l ow s t at e def i ni t i ons t o di ct at e fe der al courtdeci s i ons under§ 1983. T he doct ori n W

e st w as empl oy ed part
- t i m e bycontr actw i t h t he s t a t e , b u tt h a te mp l o yme n td i d n o ta u t omat i c a l l yma k e h i m a s t at e ac t or . T he ul t i m at e ques t i on i n W est , as i n al l s t at e ac t i on c a se s, w a s w h e th e r th e d o c to r’s c o n d u c t w a s “ f a irlya ttribu tab le t o t he St at e. ” Id

. at 54. “I ti s t he phy s i ci an’ s funct i on w i t hi n t he s t at e s y s t em, nott he pr eci s e t erm s of hi s empl oym ent , that det erm i nes w hetherhi s act i ons can f ai r l ybe att r i but ed t o the S ta te ,” th e C o u rt e x p la in e d

. Id . a t 5 5 -5 6
. W est ’ s appr oach f

i t s w i t h t he Supr eme C our t ’ s t eac hi ng-13- th a t sta te
- h ir e d p riv a te c o n tra c to rs a re n o t au to m a tica llysta te a c t o r s u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 , e v e n i f th e s t a t e i s th e i ro n l yp a t r on. See R endel l

- B aker , 457 U
. S. at840- 41. I tal s o acc or ds w i t h t he p ri n c ip le th a t la b e ls a re n o t d is p o s itiv e in s ta te a c tio n c a s e s . See B r entw ood A cad. , 531 U
. S. at296. L ooki ng t o t he r eal i t yover th e f o r m o f th e S e rv is e s ’ r e la tio n s h ip w ith P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ee C r is s m an , 2 8 9 F
. 3 d at 24 3 , itis cl ea r th a t the ym u ch m o re c lo se lyre se m b le th e p riv a te n u rsin g h o m e c o n tra c to r he ld n o t to be a s t at e ac t ori n R endel l

- B akert h a n t h e o f f i c i a l s t h e S u p r e me C o u rt h a s h e ld a c ted u n d e r c o lo r o f sta te la w b yv irtu e o f

th e ir g o v e rn m e n ta l p o s itio n s . See M onr oe v. P ape , 365 U
. S. 167, 184 (1 9 6 1 ) (p o lice o f

f ice rs) ; P ar r at t v. Tayl or , 451 U
. S. 527, 535- 36 (1 9 8 1 ) (p riso n o f

f icia ls); Zi ner m on v. B ur ch , 494 U
. S. 113, 135- 36 ( 1990) ( s t at e hos pi t al offi ci al s )

. A s w e r ej ect ed i n C r is s m an th e n o tio n th a t a s tate law d e sig n a tin g p riv a te a c to r s a s s tate
“ a g e n t s ” ma k e s t h e m s t a t e a c t o r s p e r s e , 2 8 9 F
. 3 d a t 2 4 3

- 4 4 , we r ej ectt he pr opos i t i o n t hatPenns y l vani a’ s char act er i zat i on of the S ervi ses as “em ploy ees” autom at i cal l ym akes them st at e act ors. See Raybur n v. H

ogue , 241 F. 3d 1341, 1349 ( 1 1 th C ir

. 2001) ( hol di n g t h a tp o s s e s s i o n o f i mmun i t yf

r o m t o r ts u i tas “e m p loy ee s” o f stat e d o es n o t m ak e f o ster pa ren ts st ate a ctors). 2 . F o ste r C a re in P e n n sy lv a n ia T he quest i on r emai ns , t hen, w hethert he Servi s es per form ed a tr adi t i onal l yand exc l us i vel y publ i c funct i on. I f s o, re g a rd les s o f

th e ir f o rm a l d e sig n a tio n b y th e sta te, th e ya re sta te act or s . T he i s s u e t hus becomes pr eci s el yw hatfunct i on of the Ser v ises t o choos e as ourobj ectof compar i s on. Shoul d i tbe th e ir o v e ra ll d u ties a s f o s te r p a re n ts? S h o u ld it b e th e ir d a ily car e forL es hko’ s phy s i cal needs ? S houl d i t be t hei rdeci s i ons re late d to L e sh k o ’s in

ju rie s? T h e q u e stio n is c ritica l, fo r itsFol l ow i ng t he exam pl e of t he S upr eme C our t , w e l ook t o t he 4 hi s t or i cal pr act i ce of t he s t at e at i s s ue, r ather t han na ti onal tr e n d s . See, e. g, Sul l i van , 526 U
. S. at55- 57. -14- an sw er m ay b e ou tcom e de term inative. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt appea r s t o empl oyvary i ng appr oache s t o t hi s i s s ue. Som et i m es t he C our t s eems t o i dent i fy t he func t i on br oadl y , as i n R e n d e llB aker , whi c h h e l d i n a t e a c h e r s ’ s u i tf o ru n l a wfu l t e r m i nat i on t hatt he “e ducat i on of m al adj us t ed hi gh s chool s tudent s ” i s not t r a d i t i o n a l l ya n d e x c l u s i v e l yg o v e r n me n t a l

. 4 5 7 U. S
. a t8 4 2
. At ot hert i m es , t he C our t t akes a narr ow ervi ew , as i n B l um , w hi ch hel d i n a pat i ent s ’ s ui tforunl aw ful t r ansfe r f rom a nur s i ng hom e that“dec i s i ons m ade i n t he day

- t o- dayadmi ni s t r at i on” of th e h o m e w e re n o t trad iti o n a llya n d e x c lu siv e lyg o v e rn m e n tal. 457 U
. S. at1012. W e w i l l fol l ow t he appr oach i n W est , w hi ch empl oy s t he br oad met hodol ogyof R endel l

- B aker

. W e fol l ow W est beca use, though ther e ar e cr i t i cal fac tual di ffe r ence s betw een W

est and the pr es entcas e, the claim i n t hatcas e – n e g lig e n t ad m in istra tio n o f m e d ica l ca re

– m o st c lo se lyp a ra llels L es hko’ s . I n W

est , the S up rem e C ou rtcon si dered b road ly w hethert he pr ovi s i o n of m edi cal s ervi ces t o i nj ur ed i nm at es w as a tr adi t i onal l yexcl us i ve governm ent al funct i on. 487 U
. S. at54- 5 6 ; Sul l i van , 5 2 6 U .S . at 5 5 (d e sc rib in g f u n c tio n c o n sid e re d in W est a s “ p ro v id [ in g ] m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t to in ju re d in m a te s ” ). W e th u s w ill a sk w h e th e r th e p ro v isio n o f c a re to c h ild re n in fos t erhom es i s a t r adi t i onal l y excl us i ve gover nm ent al funct i on. N o a sp e c t o f

p ro v id in g c a re to f

o ste r c h ild re n in Penns y l vani a has everbeen th e excl us i ve pr ovi nce of t he g o v e rn m e n t. E v e n to d a y , w h ile re m o v in g c h ild re n f ro m th e ir 4 h o m es a n d p lacing them w ith o ther c are g ivers a rg u a b lyare exclusi vely go vernm ental fun ct i on s i n P enn sy l van i a, t he h and s-F o r a b rie f p e rio d in th e e a rly -1 9 th c e n tu ry ( f ro m 1 8 2 0 to 5 1835) , Phi l adel phi a oper at ed a pub li c orphanage , butbym i dcentur yci tyoffi ci al s “bac ke da wayf r o m di r ectr es pons i bi l i t yfor t he ci t y ’ s poor and dependentchi l dr en, ” and pr i vat e orphanage s to o k o v e r. See A SHBY , supra a t 2 7 -2 8
. -15- on care m ay be t ender ed byfami l i es , pr i vat e or gani zat i ons , or pu bli c agen ci es, s ee 42 Pa
. C
. S. § 6351, and thus i s not e x c lu siv e lyg o v e rn m e n tal. O rg a n ize d p lac e m e n t o f c h ild re n in fost er h o m e s b egan i n lat e-19t h cen turyP enn sy l van i a as a s e rv ic e o f

p ri v a te s o c ie tie s to p ro te c t c h ild re n f ro m c ru e lty. See L E R OY A SHBY , E ND AN GERED C HI L DREN : D EPENDE NCY , N EG L ECT , AN D A B US E IN A MER I C AN H I ST ORY 5 5 -61 (19 9 7 ). 5 T h e P e nn sy l van i a S ocietyfor the P revent i on of C ruel t yto C h ild re n , fo r e x a m p le, re g u lar lyre m o v e d c h ild re n f r o m th e ir h o m e s in th e late -1 8 0 0 s a n d p lac e d th e m in in stitu tio n s o r w ith o th e r f a m ilie s . Id

. a t6 1
. Be t we e n 1 8 8 0 a n d 1 9 0 5 , t wo or gani zat i ons i n Phi l adel phi a, t he H om e M i s s i onary Soci etyof Phi l adel phia a nd t he C hi l dr en’ s A i d Soci etyof Penns y l vani a, p la c e d s o m e 5 ,4 0 0 c h ild re n in f o s te r h o m e s . See P risc ill a F e rg u so n C lem e n t, Fa m ili e s a n d Fo ste r C a re : P h ila d e lp h ia in the L ate N

i neteenth C entury , in G R OW ING UP IN A MERI CA : C HI L DREN IN H IS T O R IC A L P ER SP EC TI VE 135, 139 ( N
. R ayH i ner & J o s e p h M
. H a w e s , e d s ., 1 9 8 5 ). “[ M ]o st c h ild re n e n tru ste d to t he ca r e of [ t hes e] agenc i es w er e not vagr ant s pi cked up byt he pol i c e n o ri n d i g e n tc h i l d r e n r e mov e d f r o m t h e i rh o me s by buddi ng s oci al w or ker s , buty oungs t er s w hos e fa m i l i es del i ber at el yr el i nqui s hed th em to chi l d car e age nci es . ” Id

. at 141- 42. I n 1901, Penns y l vani a bega n s upervi s i ng t he pl ace m ent o f c h ild re n in f

o s te r c a re a n d re g u la tin g th a t c a re . See A ctof M ay21, 1901, P. L
. 279 ( “To r egul at e the tr eatm entand contr ol of depe ndent , negl ect ed, and del i nquentchil d ren . . . . ”)-16- (h e re in a f ter “ Ju v e n ile A c t”) ; M

an sfi e ld’s C ase , 2 2 P a. S u p er. 224, 235 ( Pa. Super
. C t
. 1903) ( hol di ng s t atut e uncons t i tut i onal u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia c o n stitu tio n ); C om m onw eal th v. F is her , 62 A .2 d 1 9 8 , 2 0 1 (P a . 1 9 0 5 ) (h o ld in g r e v ise d sta tu te c o n stitu tio n a l). T h u s, w h ile o v e r tim e P e n n sy lv a n ia b e g a n to a d m in iste r a sp e c ts o f th e f o ste r c a re s y ste m p re v io u sly per form ed pr i vat el y , pr ovi di ng hands

- on car e has neverbeen, a n d is n o t n o w , a n e x c lu s iv e ly g o v e rn m e n ta l f u n c tio n . See Mi l bu rn v. A nn e A rund el C ou nty D ep’tof Soc. Serv’s

. , 871 F. 2d 474, 479 ( 4th C i r . 1989) ( concl udi ng, s um m ar i l y , t hat“[t ] he car e of f

os t erchi l dr en i s nott r adi t i onal l yt he exc l us i ve p re ro g a tiv e o f

th e s ta te ” ). 3. D i s t i ngui s hi ng W

est W est d oes notcompel a di ffe r entconcl us i on. W e have al l uded s ever al t i m es t o W est ’ s t e a c h i n g a n d me t h o d o l o g y ; we no w e xp r e s s l ydi s t i ng ui s h i ton i t s fa c t s. I n W est , an in m a te cl ai m ed under § 1983 t hata part
- t i m e pr i s on phy s i ci an vi ol at ed hi s E i ght h A m endmentr i ght t o be fr ee f r om cruel and unus ual pun i s h me n tb yd e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e t o h i s s e r i o u s me d i cal n e e d s. 4 8 7 U .S . at 4 5 . T h e S u p re m e C o u r t a g r e e d , an d h e ld t hatt he pr i s on doct orw as a st at e act orbeca us e he pe r form ed a t r adi t i onal l yexcl us i ve governm ent al funct i on. U ndert he fede r al C ons t i tut i on as w el l as unders t at e com m o n l aw , the C o u rt e x p la in e d , th e sta te w a s re q u ire d to p ro v id e a d e q u a te m e d ic a l c a re to t h o s e it in c a rc e ra te d

. Id . at 5 4 -5 5 . T h e sta te d e le g a te d th a t p u b l ic f u n c tio n to th e p ri s o n d o c to r. Id

. I m por t ant l yfort he W

e st C our t , t he i nm at e re cei ved hi s car e at the p ri so n h o sp it al, an d h ad n o o p ti o n o f c h o o sing m ed ical care o u ts id e th e s ta te s y s te m . Id

. at55- 56.W e n o te th at as e arly a s 1 8 3 5 the P en n sy lvan ia l eg isl ature 6 es t abl i s hed s o- cal l ed H o us es of R efuge for“i ncorr i gi bl e or vi c i o u s ” c h i l d r e n , a n d a u t h o r i z e d a l d e r me n o r j u s t i c e s o f t he p e a c e to c o m m it th o se c h ild re n to H o u s e s o f R e f u g e a t a p a re n t’ s re q u e s t. See F is her , 62 A
. 2d at55 ( r efe r r i ng t o A ctof A pr i l 10, 1835, P. L
. 133) ; A ct o f A p ri l 21, 1850, P. L
. 339 (in c o rp o ra tin g a n a ss o c iatio n to e sta b li s h a h o u se o f re f u g e in W est ern Pen nsy l van i a). W e t hink t he p assi ng of the Ju v e n ile A cti s t he more appr opr i at e dat e fo r m arki ng t he begi nni ng of P en n sy lvan ia’s m an ag em en t o f th e f o ster care sy stem , h o w ev er, b e c a u s e o f th e J u v e n ile A c t’ s m u c h b ro a d e r a p p lic a tio n . B uts ee A SHBY , supra , at 2 5 (“ A lth o u g h h o u se s o f re f u g e w e re m a in ly fordel i nquenty out hs , theycont aine d s ubs t ant i al num ber s of depende ntand negl ect ed chi l dr en. . . . T hi s bl urr i ng of l i nes betw een de pendenc yand del i nquencycont i nued i nt o t he tw en ti eth c en tury
. ”). -17- I n s ever al cruci al w ay s , car e for chi l dr en i n fos t erhom es i n Penns y l v ani a di ffe r s fr om the medi cal car e fori nm at es cons i der ed i n W

est . Fi r s t , nei t her the feder al C ons t i tut i on nor the P en n sy lvan ia C o n sti tuti o n req u ir es th atthe s t at e pr ovi de care forfos t erchi l dr en. See P A . C ONST . art
. I I I , § 29 (“a p p rop ri ati o n s m ayb e m ad e f o r . . . assistan c e to m o thers havi ng depende ntchi l dr en ”). C ons t i tut i onal obl i gat i ons on a s t at e o b v iou slyare p o w erf u l evid en ce that the re q u ir ed func t i ons ar e tr adi t i onal l ygovernm ent al , b u t he r e ther e ar e no s uch obl i gat i ons . I ns t ead, as w e discu s s ed above , s t at e- s upervi s ed f o ste r c a re in P e n n sy lv a n ia is a c re a tu re o f sta tu te, b e g u n in 1 9 0 1 u n d e r Pe n n s y l v a n i a ’ s J u v e n i l e Act
. St a tu t o r y d u t i es of 6 e v e n s u c h e a rl y v in ta g e a re n o t tr a d itio n a lly g o v e rn m e n ta l. See Sul l i van , 5 2 6 U .S . at 5 6 -5 7 (h o ld in g th a t d e c id in g w h e th e r to su sp e n d p a ym e n t f

o r d isp u te d m e d ica l trea tm e n t w a s n o t a tra d iti o n a lly e x c lu siv e g o v e rn m e n tal fu n c tio n b e c a u se inT he S u p rem e C our thas r ecogni zed the doctr i ne of par ens 7 patr i ae a s a p p lie d to c a re f o r c h ild re n . See Reno v. F l or es , 507 U
. S
. 2 9 2 , 3 0 4 (19 9 3 ); Sc h a ll v . Ma rtin , 467 U
. S. 253, 265 ( 1984) ( “C hi l dr en, by defi ni t i on, ar e not as s um ed t o have the capa ci t yt o t ake c ar e of themsel ves . T hey are assum ed t o be s ubj ectt o t he contr o l o f the i rpar ent s , and i f par ent al contr ol fal t er s , t he s t at e mustpl ayi t s partas par ens patr i ae . ”). -18- Penns y l vani a bef

or e 1915 pr i vat e empl oy er s m ade thatdeci s i on w ith o u t st ate a u tho ri za ti o n ). W e r ecogni ze t hat t he anci ent conce pt of the s over ei gn as par ens p a tr i ae , w h ic h m e a n s “ p a re n t o f h is o r h e r c o u n tr y ,” B L ACK ’ S L AW D I C TI ON ARY 1 1 4 4 (8 th e d . 2 0 0 4 ), im p o se d a d u ty on t he cr ow n t o pr otect t he peopl e and thus m ade i t“the s u p re m e g u a rd ia n a n d s u p e ri n te n d e n t o v e r a ll in f a n ts [ i.e ., c h ild re n ].” G e o rg e B . C u rt is , T h e C h e c ke re d

C a re e r o f Par ens Pat r i ae : The Stat e as P ar ent orTyr ant , 25 D E P A U L L. R EV . 895, 897 ( 1976) ( quot i ng E

yre v. T he C ou ntes s of

Sh aft sbury , 24 E ng. Re p . 6 5 9 ( Ch

. 1 7 2 2 ) )

. An d , i n d e e d , t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me 7 C our ts eemed t o al l ude to the comm on l aw r oot s of Penns y l vani a’ s J uveni l e A ct w hen i t uphel d a r evi s ed ver s i on of th e A c t u n d e r t h e s ta te c o n s titu tio n . F is her , 62 A
. 2 d at 56

- 57 ( “Ever ys t atut e w hi ch i s des i gned t o gi ve pr ot ect i on, car e and tra in in g to c h ild re n , a s a n e e d e d su b stitu te f o r p a re n tal a u th o rity and per form ance of par ent al dut y , i s buta r ecogni t i on of the dut yof the s t at e, as t he l egi t i m at e guar di an and pr otector of ch il d ren w h ere o ther g u ard ians h ip f ail s. ”). W h il e u n d er W est t he exi s t ence of a comm on l aw dut y can contr i but e t o a fi ndi ng o f s ta te a c tio n , s ee 487 U
. S. at54- 5 5 , w e do nott hi nk the e x iste n c e o f

a g e n e ra lize d d u ty , b y itse lf , is e n o u g h to m ake the S e rvi ses s t at e act ors. T hat i s becau se l i abil i t yi nh eres in exer ci s i ng t r adi t i onal l ypubl i c f unct i ons , n o t trad iti o n a llyp u b lic-19- dut i es . C

f. Fla g gBr o s . , I

n c . v . Br ooks , 4 36 U
. S. 149, 158 ( 1978) ( “W hi l e manyfunct i ons have be en per f or m ed by governm ent s , veryfew h av e been exc l us i vel yr es erved t o the sta te.” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In d e e d , w e h a v e f o u n d n o c a se in w hi ch the Supr eme C our ti den ti fied a tr adi t i onal l yexcl us i ve p u b lic f u n c tio n b a se d o n p o w e rs p o ss e ss e d , b u t n o t trad iti o n a lly e x e rc ise d , b ya sta te g o v e rn m e n t. T h u s, w h ile P e n n sylv a n ia m ayhave ha d a broa d dutyt o s uppl ycar e forneedychi l dr en s i nce the form at i on of the C om m o n w eal t h, thatdutydi d not become a pu b li c funct i on unt i l 1901 w i t h the cr eat i on of the Juven i l e A ct
. A nd , of course, as w e hav e exp l ai ned , t he h and so n p ro v isio n o f

f o ste r c a re e v e n n o w is n o t an e x c lu siv e p u b lic f u n c tio n . Second, unl i ke i n W

est , L es hko’ s car e w as notdel i ver ed in a n in s titu tio n a l s e ttin g . W est r eas oned that“al t hough t he p ro v isio n o f

m e d ica l se rv ice s is a f u n c tio n tra d iti o n a lly per form ed bypr i vat e i ndi vi dual s , the cont exti n w hi ch r es pondentper form s thes e s ervi ces . . . di st i ngui s hes t he relati o n sh ip b etw ee n resp o n d en t and W est fro m the o rdin ary p h y sici an -pa ti en t relati o n sh ip.” 4 8 7 U
. S
. at 56 n . 1 5
. T h e C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t th e “ c o rre c tio n a l s e tti n g , s p e c if ica lly d e sig n e d to be rem ov ed from t he co m m un i t y , i nev i t ablyaffects t he ex erci se of pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent
. ” Id

. H er e, of cour s e, L esh k o ’s envi r ons , a pr i vat e home, w er e appa r ent l ydes i gned s o s he w oul d not be re m oved fr om t he com m uni t y . I ti s fai rt o s aythat a p rim a ryg o a l o f

f o ste r c a re is to re p lica te a s c lo se lya s p o ss ib le t he tr adi t i onal fami l y s ett i ng i n w hi ch chi l dr en ar e car ed forand ra is e d

. See 42 P a.C
. S
. § 6301( b) ( 1) ( des cr i bi ng purpos e of Ju v e n ile A c t as b e in g “ to p re se rv e th e u n ityo f th e f a m ily w h e n e v e r p o ss ib le o r to p ro v id e a n a ltern a tiv e p e rm a n e n t f a m ily w hen the uni t yof the fami l ycannotbe mai nt ai ned”)

. I n ot her-20- cont ext s , w e have not ed thatthe hom e is a “s acr os anct ” have n o f re f u g e f ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t. U ni t ed Stat es v. Zi m m er m an , 277 F. 3d 426, 432 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng P ayton v. N ew Y ork , 445 U
. S. 573, 585 ( 1980) )

. W her eas i n W e st t h e t i g h ts e c u r i t ybas ed s t r i ctur es of pr i s on l i fe a ffe ct ed the “na tur e, t i m i ng, and form of m edi cal car e provi ded t o i nm at es , ” 487 U
. S. at56 n. 15, t he Servi s es ’ car e w as unaff ect ed by s uch pervas i ve i ns t i tut i onal in f lu e n c e s . C

f

. E dm ons on v. Lees vi l l e C oncret e C o. , 50 0 U. S. 6 1 4 , 6 2 7 -2 8 (1 9 9 1 ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t in ju ryc a u se d b ysta te a c tio n w a s c o m p o u n d e d b e c a u s e it o c c u rr e d in a c o u rt h o u s e ). T h ir d , w h il e o n lythe s tat e c o u ld ch o o se L esh k o ’s car egi ver– a fea tur e hercas e has i n comm on w i t h W est – t hat o b l i g a t i o n t o o i s c o mp a r a t i v e l yn e w i n P e n n s y l v a n i a . As we di s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , i n Pe n n s y l v a ni a, l ocat i ng s ui t abl e fos t erhom es and pl aci ng ch i l dr en i n them t r adi t i onal l yw as a func t i on of p ri v a te c h a ri ta b le o rg a n iz a tio n s . W est found i ts i gni fi cantthat “[i ] ti s onl yt hos e phy s i ci ans author ized byt he St at e t o w hom th e in m a te m a ytu rn .” 4 8 7 U .S . a t 5 5
. It sim p lyc a n n o t b e sa id that, h ist o ri ca ll y , fo ster c h il d ren in P en n sy lvan ia c o u ld o n lyturn to ca reg ivers a u tho ri ze d b ythe C o m m o n w e a lth

. W h il e c o u rt a p p r o v a l typ ic a lly w a s s e c u re d , s ee A SHBY , supra , at61, s ubs t a n t i v e a u t h o r i z a t i o n , s u c h a s i t was , was i n t h e h a n ds of v o lu n te e rs . See Juven i l e A ct § 7 (pr ov i ding for co u rts to c o mmi tn e g l e c t e d o rd e p e n d e n tc h i l d r e n “ t o the c a r e o f s o me s ui t abl e i ns t i tut i on . . . or t o t he car e of s om e as s oci at i on w i l l i ng t o r ece i ve i t , embra ci ng i n i t s obj ect the purpos e of c ar i ng or o b tain in g h o m e s f

o r d e p e n d e n t o r ne g lec ted c h ild re n . . . .”); id

. at§ 15 ( author i zi ng par ent s orguar di ans t o ent er an agr eement w i t h or gani zat i ons i ncorpor at ed i n Penns y l vani a “f ort he purpos e of a i di ng, car i ng fororpl aci ng i n hom es s uch chi l dr en, and bei ng appr oved as her ei n pr ovi ded, fort he s urr enderof s uch-21- chi l d t o s uch as s oci at i on ori ns t i tut i on, t o be t aken a nd car ed for

. . . or pu t i nto a fri end l y ho m e” ); C L EM ENT , supra at139 ( not i ng t hati n t he mid -18 0 0s , “[p] r obabl yanyw el l

- dr es s ed per s on w ho appea r ed i n t he [H om e M i s s i onarySoci ety ’ s ] offi ce c o u ld g e t a c h ild w ith in h o u rs,” a n d th e C h ild re n ’s A id S o c iety found hom es “s i m pl ybyadvert i s i ng i n n ew s paper s and by

‘ keepi ng an open of

fi ce’ ”)

. B ycontr as t , the W est Co u r ts e e ms to h a v e id e n tifie d th e se lec tio n o f p riso n d o c to rs tra d iti o n a lly a n d e x c lu s iv e ly w ith th e s ta te
. See W est , 4 8 7 U .S . a t 5 5
. R o b e rt S . su p p o rts o u r c o n c lu sio n th a t W est do es not co n tr o l t he out come her e. I n R o b e rt S
. , a pr i vat e r es i dent i al s c h o o l c o n tr a c te d w it h lo c a l g o v e r n m e n ts to re h ab ili tate ju v e n ile se x o f f e n d e rs. 2 5 6 F .3 d a t 1 6 2
. R o b e rt su e d th e sc h o o l a n d its e mpl o y e e s u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 , a l l e g i n g p h y s i c a l a n d p s y c h o l o g i cal a b u s e . Id . at 1 6 3 . W e h e ld th a t th e sc h o o l a n d its e m p lo y e e s d id no tserve tr adit i on a l l ye xc l us i ve go ve rnmen t a l fu nc t i on s becau se o n ly p ri v a te s c h o o ls s p e c ia liz e d in tr e a tin g s e x o f f e n d e rs . Id

. at 166. Seemi ng to invoke W est , R o b ert a rg u e d th a t h e w a s h e ld a t th e sc h o o l a g a in st his w ill , a n d th u s h is s itu a tio n w a s “ e n tirely anal ogous t o [that ] of ei t hera pr i s onerorm ent al l ycomm i t t ed i ndi vi dual hel d agai ns thi s w i l l

. ” Id

. H er e, i ti s uncl earw hether L es hko w as vol unt ar i l yturned overt o t he C ount yorw as r emoved agai ns therm oth er’ s w i l l

. A s s um i ng t hats he w as for ci bl yr emoved, as w e muston t hi s appea l o f a gr antof a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , w e expl ai ned i n R o b e r tS

. t hat“the pow er t hat[the l ocal governm ent ] exer ci s ed overR ober ti s not compar abl e t o t he po w er that a s t at e exe r ci s es overa per s on w hos e l i ber t y i s r es t r i ct ed as a r es ul tof a c r i m i nal convi ct i on or in v o lu n ta ry c iv il c o m m itm e n t. T h e la tte r p o w e r is q u in tes se n tia lly g o v e rn m e n ta l, b u t a leg a l g u a rd ia n ’s a u th o rity overa m i noris not . ” 2 5 6 F
. 3 d at 16 7 n .9 (em p h asis ad d ed ).-22- W e rei t erat e t hat pr i ncipl e t od ayas ap p l i ed to fost er par ents
.

III . L es hko’ s cas e r es embl es none of thos e contr ol l i ng d e c is io n s w h e re s ta te a c tio n h a s b e e n f o u n d

. W est al one m akes t hi s cas e cl os e, and, as w e have expl ai ned, w e thi nk Le s h k o ’ s s i tu a t i o n i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m W est . W e have obs erved thatt he tr adi t i onal l yexcl us i ve publ i c func t i on re q u ir e m e n t is a “ ri g o ro u s s ta n d a rd ” th a t is “ ra re ly . . . s at i s fi ed, ” R o b e rt S
. , 256 F. 3d at166 ( ci t i ng M ark v. B or ough of H atboro , 5 1 F
. 3 d 1 1 3 7 , 1 1 4 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ) , a n d we concl ude thati ti s nots at i s fi ed her e. T her e i s not “s uch a cl os e nexus betw een the St at e and the cha l l enged a ct i on that s eemi ngl ypr i vat e beha vi orm aybe fa i r l ytr eat ed as thatof the St at e i t s el f, ” B r entw ood A cad. , 531 U
. S. at295 ( ci t at i on and in ter n a l q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). W e th u s h o ld th a t f o ste r p a re n ts in P e n n sy lv a n ia a re n o t sta te a c to rs f o r p u rp o se s o f

liab ili ty under§ 1983. W e ther efor e w i l l aff

i r m the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt.