Lazor v. The Dream Center

Background

Free Lazor proceeded without a lawyer and alleged that, while residing at a transitional housing facility as a parolee, he was repeatedly bitten by bedbugs. He claimed that the facility’s owner and two nonprofits affiliated with it knew about a longstanding and pervasive infestation but failed to remedy it.

He sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants moved to dismiss his first amended complaint.

Reasoning

Section 1983 generally permits claims against government actors, not private parties. A private party may be sued under that law only if its conduct can fairly be attributed to the government. The court considered four tests for deciding whether private conduct qualifies as government action:

1. Public-function test: The private party performs a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the government. The court concluded that Free Lazor had not shown that operating a transitional housing facility meets this standard.

2. Joint-action test: Government officials and private parties act together to cause the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Free Lazor had not alleged that state officials knew about the bedbug infestation, so he had not plausibly alleged coordinated action.

3. State-compulsion test: The government coerces or significantly encourages the private party’s conduct. The court found no alleged facts showing that the state coerced or encouraged the defendants to conceal the infestation.

4. Governmental-nexus test: Government institutions and officials are deeply intertwined with the private organization’s structure and operations. Free Lazor had not alleged that public officials made up most of the organizations, dominated their decisions, or that the defendants relied on public funding. The court also explained that contracting with the government, including housing parolees under a contract, does not by itself turn a private party into a government actor.

Because none of these tests was satisfied, the court concluded that Free Lazor had not plausibly alleged that the defendants caused a federal-rights violation fairly attributable to the state.

Ruling and next steps

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It found that amendment might not be futile, so it gave Free Lazor leave to amend. If he chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must do so by September 11, 2026. The court stated that if he does not meet that deadline, or if the new complaint does not state an actionable claim, it will dismiss the claims with prejudice.