### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 30304 Summary Calendar

BRANDON SCOTT LAVERGNE , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
JOHN FAULK , Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:13

- CV

- 2191

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brandon Scott Lavergne, Louisiana prisoner # 424229, pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder for the murders of Michaela Shunick and Lisa Pate. Thereafter, Lavergne filed a civil rights complaint against John Faulk. T he district court dismissed Lavergne’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cla ims for failure to state a claim because Faulk was not a state actor for Section 1983 purposes and , in the alternative, as barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 3, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-30304 Document: 00512823687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2014No. 14

- 30304
(1994 )

. Additionally, the district court dismissed Lavergne’s Louisiana state law claims wi thout prejudice

. This court reviews a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii) de novo , applying the same standard that is used to review a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren , 134 F. 3d 732, 733

- 34 (5th Cir. 1998). Lavergne argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim because Faulk assumed the role of a state actor by investigating and reporting information to the police. For a private citizen, such as Faulk, to be held liable under Section 1983, “the plaintiff must allege and prove that the citizen conspired with or acted in concert with state actors.” Mylett v. Jeane , 879 F.2d 1272, 1275 (5th Cir. 1989 ) . A plaintiff satisfies this
b urden by alleging and proving : “(1) an agreement between the private and public defendants to commit an illegal act and (2) a deprivation of constitutional rights. Allegations that are merely conclusory, without reference to specific facts, will not suffi ce.” Priester v. Lowndes Cnty. , 354 F.3d 414, 420 (5th Cir. 2004). Here, the district court correctly determined that Lavergne’s complaint failed to allege that Faulk conspired with a state actor. Although Lavergne alleged in his complaint that Faulk li ed to the police and possibly to the grand jury, he failed to allege an agreement between Faulk and the police, or any other state actor, to commit an illegal act. Accordingly, the district court did not err when it dismiss ed Lavergne’s claims against Faulk for failure to state a claim. See id. In th is same vein, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lavergne’s motions to amend his complaint because the amendments were futile in light of his failure to s tate a claim

. See Leal v. McHugh , 731 F.3d 405, 417 (5th Cir. 2013). In light of the foregoing, the

2 Case: 14-30304 Document: 00512823687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2014No. 14

- 30304
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lavergne’s motion to appoint counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212

- 13 (5th Cir. 1982 ).
T o the extent Lavergne raises new claims on appeal, we do not address them. See Williams v. Ballard , 466 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2006). Lavergne’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 14-30304 Document: 00512823687 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2014