Court Opinion

ID: 2963682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:54.133491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:44.712830
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        November 8, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1585 

                                  DERRICK ANDERSON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                TOWER RECORDS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Derrick Anderson on brief pro se.
            ________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Derrick  Anderson appeals pro  se the
                      __________                              ___  __

            dismissal  of his  in forma  pauperis complaint  as frivolous
                               __ _____  ________

            under 28  U.S.C.    1915(d).   We affirm  in part,  vacate in

            part, and remand other claims for further proceedings.

                      The  complaint alleges  that on  October  28, 1991,

            Anderson was  arrested  by  two  security guards  as  he  was

            leaving Tower  Records.   The guards allegedly  searched him,

            seized compact discs for which he had a receipt, and detained

            him until Boston Police  officers arrived and transported him

            to a "lock-up."  Anderson was later tried for shoplifting and

            acquitted.   He seeks declaratory relief  and damages against

            Tower  Records, the  two guards,  their supervisor,  and "any

            other  respondeat  superiors"  for violations  of  his  civil

            rights  under 42  U.S.C.      1983,  1985,  as  well  as  for

            violations of 18 U.S.C.    241, 242.

                      We affirm  the dismissal of Anderson's  42 U.S.C.  

            1985  and  18 U.S.C.      241,  242 claims,  as  well  as the

            dismissal of his  claim for  damages under 42  U.S.C.    1983

            based on  defendants' testimony at Anderson's criminal trial.

            Anderson makes no reference to these claims in his brief, and

            we  affirm their dismissal on  the ground that  he has waived

            them.  See,  e.g., Frazier v. Bailey, 957 F.2d  920, 932 n.14
                   ___   ____  _______    ______

            (1st Cir. 1992).  We  add that, in any event, we  think these

            claims were properly dismissed for the reasons stated  by the

            district court.

                                         -2-

                      Anderson's remaining claims allege  unlawful search

            and seizure, false arrest, and malicious prosecution under 42

            U.S.C.    1983.  The district court dismissed these claims on

            the ground  that Anderson failed to state  facts showing that

            the  defendants  acted under  color of  law.   See  Alexis v.
                                                           ___  ______

            McDonald's  Restaurants of Mass., Inc., 1995  WL 584187 at *7
            ______________________________________

            (1st   Cir.  Oct.   10,   1995)   (discussing  state   action

            requirement).   We think  that the dismissal  of these claims

            under     1915(d),  without  an  opportunity  to  amend,  was

            precipitous.1   Since  there  are circumstances  under  which

            security guards  and their  employers have been  found to  be

            state actors, see,  e.g., Murray v. Wal-Mart,  Inc., 874 F.2d
                          ___   ____  ______    _______________

            555,  558-59  (8th Cir.  1989);  Rojas  v. Alexander's  Dep't
                                             _____     __________________

            Store, Inc., 654 F. Supp. 856, 858 (E.D.N.Y. 1987), we cannot
            ___________

            say that Anderson would  be unable to cure any  deficiency in

            his  allegations by  more specific  pleading, see  Neitzke v.
                                                          ___  _______

            Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 331 (1989) (complaint  which fails to
            ________

            state  a cause  of  action is  not automatically  frivolous).

            Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal of these claims.

                      We stress that  at this stage Anderson has  not met

            the "color-of-law" requirement  through adequate  allegations

                                
            ____________________

            1.  We note  that although the  district court issued  a show
            cause  order allowing  Anderson twenty  days within  which to
            explain why his complaint should not be dismissed, the record
            discloses that this order  was returned, undelivered, because
            Anderson,  an inmate, had been transferred from one prison to
            another.  

                                         -3-

            of fact (let alone proof), and it may well be  that he cannot

            do so.  But this is an area of law in which the precedents do

            not provide a simple bright-line test, and there are at least

            hints that Anderson might  have more to allege on  the color-

            of-law  issue  if  afforded   an  opportunity.    Because  of

            circumstances outside the control  of both the district court

            and  Anderson,  that  opportunity has  not  been  effectively

            afforded, and we think that it should  be, without intimating

            any view about the ultimate result in this case.

                 Affirmed, in  part; vacated,  in part; and  remanded for
                 ________________________________________________________

            further proceedings.
            ____________________

                                         -4-