The plaintiff was a former teacher at an Arizona charter school. ?The defendants were the corporation that ran the? charter school and its executive director.? ?The school did not renew plaintiff?s contract because of an alleged inappropriate relationship with a female student. He asked for a name-clearing hearing, which was denied. ?He was unable to get another job due to the circumstances of his dismissal. ?He filed suit under ? 1983 for deprivation of a liberty interest. The district held that defendants were not state actors despite the fact that the school was public. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed.?? Relying on Iqbal, the appellate court held that the complaint had to state a claim that was plausible on its face. The district court held that the complaint pleaded only that being a charter school ipso facto made defendants state actors. ?The appellate court held that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that the school itself was sufficiently involved in causing the harm to the plaintiff. ?The court also rejected the claim that because the school provided a public function defendants were state actors.???? ?Caviness ?v. ?Horizon? Community Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2010) (Ikuta, Trott, McKeown)