Opinion ID: 820732
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Against Richard

Text: The reasoning that leads us to affirm dismissal of Glotfelty’s claims against Hart and Karas also supports the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Richard. More particularly, although Glotfelty alleged that Richard was an employee or deputy of the STPSO, he did not set forth any specific facts indicating that Richard’s position facilitated the asserted constitutional deprivations, or that they were made possible only by virtue of Richard’s alleged employment. See West, 487 U.S. at 49; Miss. Women’s Med. Clinic v. McMillan, 866 F.2d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1989) (“In deciding whether there has been the state action necessary to support a claim under § 1983, we have required that the state official affirmatively act in support of the violation.”). To the contrary, because a state court judge issued an attachment order against Glotfelty, law enforcement easily could have executed the order without Richard’s participation. Further, just as with Hart and Karas, Richard’s reliance on Louisiana law to seek the attachment order in the first place does not make him 2 As a result, we likewise affirm dismissal of claims against “XYZ Insurance Company,” the unidentified professional liability insurer of Hart and Karas. 11 Case: 12-30532 Document: 00512145045 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 No. 12-30532 a state actor subject to liability under § 1983. See Dennis, 449 U.S. at 28. Finally, to the extent Glotfelty implies that Richard’s liability derives from his joint participation in a conspiracy with state actors, we conclude that no specific facts pertaining to such an allegation exist in Glotfelty’s complaint. Priester, 354 F.3d at 420.