# United States Cou rt of App eals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604
Submi tte d October 25, 2013 * Deci ded October 25, 2013

Before
RICHARD A. POS NER, Circ uit Judge
DIANE S. S YKES , Circ uit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circ uit Judge
No. 13-2566 ALEXANDER PIETER JAMES de VRYER, Plaintiff–Appell ant,

v.
MARY VILLE ACADEMY, et al. , Defen dants–Appellees

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Nort hern Di stric t of Illinoi s, Eastern Di vis i on.
No. 13 C 4082

Matt hew F. Kennelly, Judge.
O R D E R
Alexander de Vryer was b riefl y commi tte d i n Jun e 2011 at a psychi atr i c hospi tal oper ated by M ary ville Ac ademy, a Roman Catho li c insti tution for tr oubled ch i ldren and young adults. He was h eld i nvoluntar i ly for ei ght day s, and du ring that time h e left the faci li ty but soo n was ret urned by polic e. De Vryer has s ued Mary ville an d three N O N P R E C E D E N T I A L D I S P O S I T I O N T o b e c i t e d o n l y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h F e d

. R

. A p p
. P

. 3 2

. 1

T h e a p p e l l e e s w e r e n o t s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a n d a r e n o t * p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s a p p e a l

. A f t e r e x a m i n i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ’s b r i e f a n d t h e r e c o r d , w e h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e c a s e i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r s u m m a r y d i s p o s i t i o n . S e e F ED

. R

. A PP

. P

. 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C )

.No. 13-2566 Page 2

employees clai mi ng under 42 U.S .C. § 1983 and state law that hi s forcible detention violated the Co nsti tution and am ounted to false i mpri sonment. Tw o of t he defendants, he says, c aused h i s comm i tment by falsely characterizing hi m as ps ychoticand paranoid.
The di stric t court screened the complaint, see Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Ci r. 1999), and conclu ded that it fai ls to state a § 1983 claim . The court reasoned that stat e acti on i s an elemen t of any clai m und er § 1983, see Hallin an v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. L odge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 815 (7th Cir. 2009); Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Ci r. 2001), and thus the defendan ts could not be li able on de Vryer ’s federal clai m bec ause none i s a state actor . The court decli ned to ex erci se su pplemental jurisdi cti on ov er his clai m for false i mpri sonment. De Vryer was anadult when h e was c ommi tte d at Mar yv i lle. Adults in Illi noi s may be admi tte d i nvoluntar i ly to a mental-health fac i li ty o n the petiti on of anyo ne 18 or older if there is i mmedi ate need to prot ect the patient or o thers fro m physi cal harm. 405 ILCS 5/3-600, -601(a) (2010) . The peti tion may be presented to t he faci li ty, and if a physi ci an, psych i atr i st, or other quali fi ed exami ner cert i fi es that im medi ate hospi talizati on i s nec essary, the patient may be detain ed. Id. §§ 5/3-601, -602. P ro mptly after t he pati ent’s admi ssi on, the faci li ty must fi le the petiti on and certifi cati on i n a ci rcui t court, whi ch then has fi ve business days to conduct a hearing to dete rmi ne i f the patien t should remai n commi tte d. Id. §§ 5/3-611, -808. P rivate faci li ties and thei r employees do not engage in s tate acti on by virtue of t hei r par tic i pation in thi s process. See Spen cer v. L ee, 864 F.2d 1376, 1377 (7th Cir. 1989) ( en banc ); Wittner v. Banner Health , 720 F.3d 770, 779 (10th Cir. 2013); Estades-Negroni v. CPC Hosp. San Juan C apestrano , 412 F.3d 1, 5–9 (1st Ci r. 2005). Nor do private acto rs engage i n state action w hen poli ce ass i st i n a lawf ul comm i tment. Spen cer, 864 F.2d at 1382. Had Mar yv i lle been prov i di ng psychi atr i c care to de Vr yer under a contract with the Stat e of Illin ois, perhaps he would have been able to stat e a § 1983 clai m. See R odriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance S erv. , 577 F.3d 816, 827 (7th Cir. 2009) ( explain i ng that cont ractual relat i on wi th state is p rinc i pal way that pr i vat e entiti es, i nclu di ng healthcare pro viders, mi ght be subject to li abi li ty under § 1983); Ellison v. Garbarino , 48 F.3d 192, 195 (6th Cir. 1995) ( explain i ng that stat e acti on may be found i f pri vat e actor and state have suffi ci ently close relat i on, suc h as thro ugh contract). But that i s not what de Vryer alleges.
The di stric t court explain ed the absenc e of state action to de Vr yer , but i nstead of art i culating why he di sagrees wi th the court ’s deci si on, de Vry er ignores it and threat ens to continu e fi li ng lawsu i ts unti l he i s awarded $2.5 mi lli on. Ever y liti gant,No. 13-2566 Page 3

even t hose who are pro se, mu st comply wi th Feder al Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)( 9), wh i ch requi res an appellant’s bri ef to inc lude hi s “contenti ons and the reasons for t hem.” De V ry er’s brief i s not responsi ve t o the dis tr i ct court’s deci si on, and we wi ll not fashi on and develop ar guments for hi m. See Ande rson v. Hardman , 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Ci r. 2001). By not presentin g an arg ument i n hi s bri ef, de Vryer has abandoned hi s appeal of the di stric t court ’s deci si on. See Mathis v. N.Y. Li fe Ins. Co. , 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir. 1998). And s hould de Vryer conti nue fi li ng appeals wi th the stated go al of ext racting payment to g et himto sto p, he fac es san cti ons from this court. See F E D

. R. A P P . P. 38; Berwick Grain Co. v. Ill. Dept. of Agric. , 217 F.3d 502, 505 (7th Cir. 2000) (i mposing sancti ons for pursui ng frivolous appeal that must have been fi led i n bad fai th); Hill v. Norfolk & W . Ry. Co. , 814 F.2d 1192, 1200–01 (7th Cir. 1987) ( i mposing sanc tions for fil ing appeal consi sti ng of gr oundless legal arg uments)

. DISMI SS ED.