WPC[ 8ט"2\8ט$t߁ `5L2ؚתo>aJN,YQ0~j)|Sp_c 8Mq/QJUFy)JqG`vwe/W18zb vRWsƚ.rQ.ne I՜qcQ y1(k#ŒUr6]}tHiĜ4 ؖ_uIօFHNWo '[BK};qdzq.K"[ȐBDGCBфs$sD)֪٘jzx<50&eEegF@:o96G oY\=B wFG^h ԁpלl !@o۸^-h SⲎ';S drE+ +eTի80{ٔMPVLCiֶ'T# % 0D 0(U:; 0uN;UN=NUFU>^  w 4! 5 D EF fH aJ m^ u N} UB b U: !# 0U&B'N)) 0D+ 0[,Nk, 0m, 0V- 0<. 0/ B/ 00 00 01 02 0C~3 03 04 0l5 0=6 0 7 07 08 0c9 0@#: 0c: 07; 0L< 0T< 0"= 0= 0> 0z? 0<@ 00@ 0<)A 0eA 0>#B 0vaB 0`B 0`7C 0`C 0`C 0`WD 08D 0D 02E 0E 0:F 0Y)G 0_G 0 G 0jH 0UJ B*K D/L D+2L 0]L D/M 0N 06N 0O 0:P 0^VP 0<PU6PU>&QU*dQU0QQQ 2Q 2Q"RV~Xe[ k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[k[N}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[}[ 0N[[[[[[[[[[[[[ 2[HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2X$ !    =4XXdd=    0  vr Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular,s :,6X3|x*TABLE AU <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -<6X9`("Courier 10cpi  X$  =%XXdd=    1    _E.g.,Georgiav._McCollum_,505U.S.42(1992);_Edmonson_v.  _Leesville_ԀConcreteCo.,500U.S.614(1991);Westv.Atkins,487 x U.S.42(1988);PolkCountyv._Dodson_,454U.S.312(1981);Evans @ v.Newton,382U.S.296(1966);Burtonv.WilmingtonParkingAuth., X 365U.S.715(1961).  X$  =%XXdd=    2    _SeealsoLyonsv.Bd.of_Dirs_.ofSch.Admin.Dist.No.43,  503A.2d233,23537(Me.1986)(Me.R.Civ.P.80Ballowsaction x tocompelschoolboardtovindicatestatutoryorconstitutional @ rights);_Soderstrom_v.Me.Sch.Admin.Dist.No.61,2001WL X 1711497,*2(Me.Super.2001)(studentcanbringclaimofwrongful   expulsionagainstschooldistrictunderMe.R.Civ.P.80B).*+ (_2623  ..  X$  =%XXdd=    3    __DeShaney_distinguishedtheprincipalexception,whichexists  wherethestatehasconfinedaprisonerorotherdetaineeandso x madeitselfresponsibleforphysicalormedicalprotection.489 @ U.S.at197200(citing_Youngberg_v.Romero,457U.S.307,31516 X (1982),andEstelle,429U.S.at10304).  X$  =%XXdd=    4    _Cf.CityofLosAngelesv.Heller,475U.S.796,79899  (1986);Evansv.Avery,100F.3d1033,1040(1stCir.1996); x _Willhauck_v._Halpin_,953F.2d689,714(1stCir.1991).($$  0  (3$ !    0  .*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   d*;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  >c$"Small Circle"0 (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK^<6X9`(Courier NewKS_\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K^<6X9`(Courier NewKS_\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K^<6X9`(Courier NewKS_\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7T(X7  ?`%2A`Arial?  S_\  `&Times New RomanS7U(X7&  d dS)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7W(X7  ?`%2A`Arial?  S_\  `&Times New RomanS7U(X7S)2dxd0KS.SampleK^<6X9`(Courier NewKS_\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK^<6X9`(Courier NewKS_\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial<\( 9Z+Courier Document1zzSDUNumber35Document1zzSDUNumber17  X$  =%XXdd=    1    _aX%XXXԀSymbioticrelationshipdoctrineconsiderswhetherthe  government"hassofarinsinuateditselfintoapositionof x interdependencewith[theprivateentity]thatitmustbe @ recognizedasajointparticipantinthechallenged% d %dactivity." X Barrios_Velazquez_v._Asociacion_Ԁde_Empleados_Ԁdel_Estado_ԀLibre   _Asociado_ԀdePuertoRico,84F.3d487,494(1stCir.1996)(internal  quotationmarksomitted).#X%XXaX%#X>XXX%  X$  =%XXdd=    2    _aX%XXXԀMeganM.Cooper,_Casenote_,DustingOfftheOldPlayBook:  HowtheSupremeCourtDisregardedtheBlumTrilogy,Returnedtothe x TheoriesofthePast,andFoundStateActionThroughEntwinementin @ BrentwoodAcademyv.TennesseeSecondarySchoolAthletic X Association,35_Creighton_ԀL.Rev.913,98586(2002).#X%XXaX%#X>XXX% t X$  =%XXdd=    3    _aX%XXXԀTherelevantstatutesregulatethetuitionthatprivate  schoolsarepermittedtochargestateentities,setting"maximum x allowabletuition...plusaninsuredvaluefactor"which"may @ notexceed10%ofaschool'slegaltuitionrateperstudentinany X oneyear."Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.20A,5806(2).X>XXaX%\lSDU_29(O$Document1zzSDUNumber33 !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !X>XXXsNXX>     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealssN  FortheFirstCircuit  p XX p  A') ` dE< ` A    X%XX XNo.012721 K  @<< ZACHARIAH_LOGIODICE_,  +  @ Plaintiff,Appellant, k  @tt)v. K  @TRUSTEESOFMAINECENTRALINSTITUTE,DOUGLASC.CUMMINGS,   @JOHNMARQUIS,_TERRANCE_ԀC._McCANNELL_ԀandMAINESCHOOL S  @ ADMINISTRATIVEDISTRICTNO.53, k @Defendants,Appellees.  A') ` dE<:` A ; @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT b @FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE  @ [Hon.GeorgeZ._Singal_,U.S.DistrictJudge] 2 A') ` dE<` A  @'Before    @@((_Boudin_,ChiefJudge, )y! Lynchand_Lipez_,CircuitJudges.  # A') ` dE<"` A "a&       RichardL._O'Meara_withwhomBarbaraT.SchneiderandMurray, "8( Plumb&Murraywereonbriefforappellant. #)   PeterT._Marchesi_withwhomWheeler&_Arey_,P.A.wereonbrief x$* forappellees_Terrance_ԀC._McCannell_ԀandMaineSchoolAdministrative @% + DistrictNo.53. &X!,   BruceC._Mallonee_withwhomLukeM._Rossignol_andRudman& & "- _Winchell_,LLCwereonbriefforappelleesMaineCentralInstitute, '". DouglasC.Cummings,andJohnMarquis. `(#/ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  *&2*&  SI+l&3 I@37454I@SJuly18,2002 +4'5  RHC,'6" I@37454 I@ R(+l&7  (  * ! -(7? _ԇ    8%XXdd8*,X` XX* ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge.MaineSchoolAdministrative  DistrictNo.53thelocalgovernmentagencyresponsiblefor @ schoolingchildrenintheMainecommunitiesofPittsfield,Burnham,   andDetroitdoesnotoperateitsownpublichighschool.Instead `  itunderwritessecondaryeducationforstudentsthroughacontract  @ withMaineCentralInstitute("MCI"),aprivatelyoperatedhigh    schoolinthedistrict.See20AM.R.S.A.2701(West1993& `  Supp.2001).Thecontractoriginallyforatenyeartermstarting   in1983andlaterextendedthroughseparateagreementsfortwomore 0  tenyearperiods(startingin1993and2003)providesthatMCI  willacceptandeducatealloftheschooldistrict'sstudentsin P theninththroughtwelfthgradesinexchangeforspecifiedtuition 0 paymentsbytheschooldistrict. p  ` ZachariahLogiodicewasaneleventhgradestudentatMCI P duringthe19992000schoolyear.OnJanuary19,2000,hecursed  atateacher,Mr.Harper,whohadconfiscatedhissodajustprior  p toamidtermEnglishexam.Harperimmediatelyreportedthe   incidenttoMCI'sdeanofstudents,JohnMarquis,whotoldZachhe @" wouldbesuspendedifhedidnotleavethegymwheretheexamwas  $ beingheld.AccordingtoMarquis,ZachthenapproachedMarquisand `"& curseddefiantlyathim;Zachdeniesthisandsayshesimplyasked #@( Marquisforhissodaback.Inanyevent,Zachdoesnotdispute % * thatherefusedtoleavetheclassroom. '`",  ` Aftertheexam,MarquiscalledZach'smotherandasked (#. hertopickZachupfromschool.Whenshearrived,Marquis 0*%0 describedtheincidentandinformedherthatZachwouldbe +'2 suspendedfortenschooldays;healsotoldherthatbothheand  HarperhadfeltthreatenedbyZach'sbehavior.Marquismetwith @ bothZach'sparentslaterthatafternoonandatthatpoint   suggestedthatZachseeacounselor.Twodaysafterward,Marquis `  sentalettertoZach'sparentsconfirmingthetendaysuspension  @ andalsoindicatingforthefirsttimethatZachwouldnotbe    allowedtoreturntoschoolevenaftertendaysunlessheobtained `  counselinganda"safetyevaluation"fromalicensedpsychologist.    ` Nineschooldayslater,onFebruary1,2000,Zach's 0  parentswerestillunabletogettherequired"safetyevaluation"  forZach.Thepsychologisttheycontacteddidnothavean P appointmentavailableuntilFebruary7andfurthertoldthemthat 0 nopsychologistwouldbewillingtogivesuchanevaluation.At p thispoint,Zach'sparentscalledMCI'sheadmaster,Douglas P Cummings,requestingthatZachbeallowedtoreturntoschool  withouttheevaluationandarguingthatasuspensionofgreater  p thantendayswouldviolatestatelaw,see20AM.R.S.A.1001(9).   Cummingsrefusedtherequest,sayingthatthelawdidnotapplyto @" privateschoolsincludingMCI.  $  ` Zach'sparentsthenaskedthesuperintendentofthe `"& schooldistrict,TerranceMcCannell,tointercedeontheirbehalf. #@( McCannellwrotealettertoCummingsexpressingconcernthatany % * suspensionbeyondtendayswouldviolateZach'srights;healso '`", suggestedthatitwouldviolateMCI'scontractwiththeschool (#. district.OnFebruary7,2000,CummingsmetwithMcCannelland 0*%0 Zach'sparentsandagreedthatZachcouldreturntoschoolifthe +'2 psychologistmetwithZachafewmoretimesandassuredschool  officialsthathewouldnotposeathreatatschool.Zachwas @ finallyallowedtoreturntoschoolonFebruary15,2000seventeen   schooldaysaftertheinitialincident. `   ` OnNovember29,2000,Zach'sparentsfiledonZach's  @ behalfasection1983suitinfederalcourtinMaineagainstMCI,    theschooldistrict,andtheindividualsinvolved.42U.S.C. `  1983(1994&Supp.V1999).ThecomplaintallegedthatMCI,   Cummings,andMarquis(collectively,"MCI")hadviolatedprocedural 0  dueprocessrequirementsbysuspendingZachwithoutgivinghiman  opportunityforahearing,seeGossv.Lopez,419U.S.565(1975), P andthattheschooldistrictandMcCannell(collectively,"the 0 schooldistrict")hadimproperlydelegatedtoMCIpowerto p disciplinepubliclyfundedstudentswithoutadequatelyassuring P thatMCIfollowedfederaldueprocesssafeguards.   ` Thedistrictcourtinitiallydenieddefendants'motionto  p dismissforfailuretostateaclaim,Logiodicev.TrusteesofMe.   Cent.Inst.,135F.Supp.2d199(D.Me.2001),butafterreceiving @" theparties'factualsubmissionsgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoboth  $ setsofdefendants,Logiodicev.TrusteesofMe.Cent.Inst.,170 `"& F.Supp.2d16(D.Me.2001).Thedistrictcourtalsodismissed #@( plaintiff'sparallelclaimsbroughtunderthestatedueprocess % * clause.Id.at34.Plaintiffnowappealstothiscourt. '`",  ` WestartwiththeclaimsagainstMCI.Thedistrictcourt (#. didnotreachthemeritsofplaintiff'sproceduraldueprocess 0*%0 claimbecauseitfoundatthethresholdthatMCIwasnotacting +'2 "undercolorofstatelaw."42U.S.C.1983.Inmostcontexts,  section1983's"undercolorofstatelaw"requisiteisconstruedin @ harmonywiththestateactionrequirementoftheFourteenth   Amendment.Lugarv.EdmonsonOilCo.,457U.S.922,93135(1982). `  Broadlyspeaking,theFourteenthAmendmentprotectsindividuals  @ onlyagainstgovernment(leavingprivateconducttoregulationby    statutesandcommonlaw).E.g.,TheCivilRightsCases,109U.S. `  3(1883).    ` Yetunderseveraldoctrines,actsbyanominallyprivate 0  entitymaycomprisestateactione.g.,if,withrespecttothe  activityatissue,theprivateentityisengagedinatraditionally P exclusivepublicfunction;is"entwined"withthegovernment;is 0 subjecttogovernmentalcoercionorencouragement;oriswillingly p engagedinjointactionwiththegovernment.BrentwoodAcad.v. P Tenn.SecondarySch.AthleticAss'n,531U.S.288,29596(2001).  Thedoctrinesaretoogenerallyphrasedtobeselfexecuting:the  p casesaresensitivetofactsituationsandlackneatconsistency.   Seeid. @"  ` Nevertheless,existingdoctrineprovidesthestarting  $ pointandframeworkforanalysis.Plaintiff'sfirstclaimon `"& appealisthatMCIisastateactorbecause(inplaintiff'swords) #@( "itwasperformingthetraditionalpublicfunctionofproviding % * publiceducationalservices"totheschooldistrict'shighschool '`", students.Underthe"publicfunction"doctrine,theSupremeCourt (#. hasidentifiedcertainfunctionswhichitregardsasthesole 0*%0 provinceofgovernment,andithastreatedostensiblyprivate +'2 partiesperformingsuchfunctionsasstateactors.Theclassic  casesaretheconductofelections,e.g.,Terryv.Adams,345U.S. @ 461(1953),andthegovernanceofa"company"town,Marshv.   Alabama,326U.S.501(1946). `   ` Sofarasthepublicfunctiontestisbasedonhistorical  @ practice(asopposedtoanormativejudgment),see,e.g.,San    FranciscoArts&Athletics,Inc.v.U.S.OlympicComm.,483U.S. `  522,545(1987),plaintiffcannotmeetit.Thisisbecauseunder   SupremeCourtprecedent,itisnotenoughthatthefunctionbeone 0  sometimesperformedbygovernmentanapproachthatwouldexclude  little,giventhediversityofactivitiesperformedbymodern P governments.Rather,wherethepartycomplainedofisotherwise 0 private,thefunctionmustbeone"exclusivelyreservedtothe p State."FlaggBros.v.Brooks,439U.S.149,158(1978)(emphasis P added).   ` Obviously,educationisnotandneverhasbeenafunction  p reservedtothestate.See,e.g.,Piercev.Soc'yofSisters,268   U.S.510(1925).InMaine,aselsewhere,schooling,includinghigh @" schooleducation,isregularlyandwidelyperformedbyprivate  $ entities;thishasbeensofromtheoutsetofthiscountry's `"& history.SeeChadbourne,AHistoryofEducationinMaine111 #@( (1936);Bowen,TheHistoryofSecondaryEducationinSomerset % * CountyinMaine1622(1935).MCIitselfwasfoundedin1866. '`", Chadbourne,supra,at283.Accordingly,theSupremeCourt,in (#. Rendell-Bakerv.Kohn,457U.S.830,84043(1982),aff'g641F.2d 0*%0 14(1stCir.1981),andlowercourts,includingthisone,see +'2 RobertS.v.StetsonSch.,Inc.,256F.3d159,16566(3dCir.  2001);Johnsonv.PinkertonAcad.,861F.2d335,338(1stCir. @ 1988),havedeclinedtodescribeprivateschoolsasperformingan   exclusivepublicfunction.SeealsoJacksonv.Metro.EdisonCo., `  419U.S.345,354n.9(1974).  @  ` Admittedly,bothRendellBakerandJohnsoninvolved    claimstodueprocessprotectionmadebyteachersandnotstudents; `  ourowndecisionsinbothcasesheldoutthepossibilitythat   studentsmighthaveabetterclaim.Johnson,861F.2dat338; 0  RendellBaker,641F.2dat26.Whetherstateactorstatusshould  dependonwhoissuingisdebatable,see,e.g.,Sherlockv. P MontefioreMed.Ctr.,84F.3d522,527(2dCir.1996),andthe 0 SupremeCourt'sdecisioninRendellBakerdidnotencouragesucha p distinction.Inanyevent,anystrongerclaimbystudentswouldbe P basednotonhistoricalpracticebutonnormativejudgments(more  istobesaidaboutthisbelow).  p  ` Plaintiffessentiallyconcedesthateducation,asa   category,isnotfromahistoricalstandpointtheexclusive @" provinceofgovernment;buthisbriefseekstonarrowandrefine  $ thecategoryasthatofprovidingapubliclyfundededucation `"& availabletoallstudentsgenerally.MCI,hesays,isdifferent #@( fromotherprivateschools;althoughitadmitssomenondistrict % * studentsselectively,itadmitsalldistrictstudentsandsoserves '`", astheschooloflastresortforstudentsinthedistrict.There (#. isnoindicationthattheSupremeCourthadthiskindoftailoring 0*%0 byadjectivesinmindwhenitspokeoffunctions"exclusively" +'2 providedbygovernment.Howeverthismaybe,evenpubliclyfunded  educationoflastresortwasnotprovidedexclusivelybygovernment @ inMaine.    ` Beforepublichighschoolsbecamewidespread,private `  grammarschoolsandacademiesreceivedpublicfundsandwerethe  @ onlysecondaryeducationavailable.SeeChadbourne,supra,at104    35,27387.Andevenastownsincreasinglybuilttheirownpublic `  schoolsbeginninginthemid1800s,somemunicipalitiescontinued   torelyonpubliclyfundedprivateschoolstoprovidefree 0  secondaryeducation.Infact,thefirststatewidehighschoollaw  providingmoneytomunicipalitiesfortheestablishmentoflocal P publicschoolsalsocontainedtheoriginalversionof20AM.R.S.A. 0 2701thecurrentprovisionallowingschooldistrictstoprovide p educationthroughcontractswithprivatehighschools.Seeid.at P 37879,51516(citing1873Me.Lawsch.124,7).Otherstates  hadsimilarlawsearlyon.E.g.,1904Vt.Acts&ResolvesNo.37,  p 2;1874N.H.Lawsch.69,1.    ` Plaintiffalsoinvokesthe"entwinement"doctrine,to @" whichwenowturn.AccordingtoBrentwood,aprivateentitymaybe  $ classedasastateactor"whenitis'entwinedwithgovernmental `"& policies'orwhengovernmentis'entwinedin[its]managementor #@( control.'"531U.S.at296(quotingEvansv.Newton,382U.S.296, % * 299,301(1966)).InBrentwood,thedefendantwasanonprofit '`", associationthatsetandenforcedstandardsforathletic (#. competitionamongschoolsbothprivateandpublic.Atissuewas 0*%0 theassociation'senforcementofrecruitmentrulesallegedbya +'2 memberschooltoviolatetheFirstandFourteenthAmendments.  Brentwood,531U.S.at29193. @  ` AcloselydividedSupremeCourtappliedthestateaction   labeltotheassociation.Theopinionstressedtwopoints:that `  themembershipoftheassociationwascomprisedoverwhelmingly(84  @ percent)of"publicschoolsrepresentedbytheirofficialsacting    intheirofficialcapacitytoprovideanintegralelementof `  secondarypublicschooling,"Brentwood,531U.S.at299300,and   thatinsubstancetheassociation(replacingpreviousstateschool 0  boardregulation)setbindingathleticstandardsforstateschools,  includingtherecruitingstandardsatissueinthecase,id.at P 30001. 0  ` Inourowncase,therearecertainlyconnectionsbetween p thestate,theschooldistrictandMCI.Thestateregulates P contractschoolsinvariousrespects,see20AM.R.S.A.X%XX X%2702# X%XXX%P#,  2901,2902,2951;most(about80percent)ofMCI'sstudentsare  p sponsoredbytheschooldistrict;theschooldistrictcontributes   abouthalfofMCI'sbudget;andincertainrespects(publicbusing @" toextracurricularevents,transferoflowerschoolrecords,  $ assistancewithregistration),MCIstudentsaretreatedasifthey `"& wereregularpublicschoolstudents. #@(  ` ButunliketheassociationinBrentwood,MCIisrunby % * privatetrusteesandnotpublicofficials;twoofficialsofthe '`", schooldistrict(aschoolprincipalandateacher)aretrusteesbut (#. serveasprivatecitizens.Andlookingtotheparticularactivity 0*%0 soughttobeclassedasstateaction,seeBlumv.Yaretsky,457 +'2 U.S.991,100405(1982)namely,theimpositionofdisciplineon  studentsthereisnoentwinement:TheMCIcontractprovides,with @ minorvariationsinlanguageamongthethreeversions,that"the   Trusteesshallhavethesolerighttopromulgate,administerand `  enforceallrulesandregulationspertainingtostudentbehavior,  @ discipline,anduseofthebuildingsandgrounds."     ` Onemightsuspectthat,givenitsfinancialleverage,the `  schooldistrictcouldhaveframedthecontracttodictateindetail   thedisciplinaryprocedurestobefollowedorcouldhaveinsisted 0  onparticipatinginsuchdecisions.Butwiselyornot,internal  operationsofMCI,andcertainlythedisciplinarystructureand P decisionmakingatissuehere,havebeenlefttoMCIsubjectonly 0 toanarguableobligationtocomplywithregulationsgoverningthe p schooldistrict(apointtowhichwereturnbelow). P  ` A"jointcommittee"ofthreeMCItrusteesandthree  schoolboardmemberswascreatedintheinitialtenyearcontract  p and,oncecreated,theoreticallycouldhaveexercisedbroadpowers   overpersonneldecisions,curriculum,andMCI's"othereducational @" activities."20AM.R.S.A.2704(2).Butthecommitteeinfact  $ neverexercisedanysuchauthorityandwasdescribedintheinitial `"& contractasexistingonlyinan"advisorycapacity."Themost #@( recenttenyearextension(effectivestartingin2003)expressly % * renamesitan"advisorycommittee."Lookingtosubstance,see '`", Brentwood,531U.S.at301,bothsidesconcedethatdaytoday (#.  operations,includingdiscipline,areinthehandsofMCI. 0*%0  ` Thus,MCIdoesnotfitwithinthetwostateaction   exceptionsinvokedbyplaintiffonappeal,norotherarguable @ exceptionsthatwerediscussedbythedistrictcourtbutareno   longerrelieduponbyplaintiff.Logiodice,170F.Supp.2dat28 `  29.Yetthisdoesnotexhausttheanalysis:therealityisthat  @ someofthecasesapplyingthestateactionlabeldonotfitwell    intoanyestablishedexceptionbutareclosertoadhocnormative `  judgments. #  1      ׀SeeBrentwood,531U.S.at29596.Thedifferenceis   thattheadhoccaseshavenotyetcongealedintoformal 0  categories.   ` Exemplifyingthispoint,plaintiff'sbestcasemaybe P Westv.Atkins,487U.S.42(1988).Thereastateprisoner, 0 claimingseriousmistreatmentbyadoctor,broughtasection1983 p suitagainstthedoctor,assertingaclaimofcruelandunusual P punishment.Assumingdeliberateindifference,thedoctorwould  clearlyhavebeenliabletosuitifhehadbeenafulltimestate  p employee.SeeEstellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,10405(1976).The   SupremeCourtinWestsaidthattheresultwasthesameeventhough @" thedoctorfurnishedthemedicalservicestoprisonersonapart  $ timebasisandwastechnicallyanindependentcontractorwiththe `"& stateratherthanastateemployee.487U.S.at5557. #@(  ` TheSupremeCourt'sanalysisdidnotrelydirectlyonthe % * publicfunctiondoctrineoranyotherorganizedbodyofprecedent. '`", Cf.Brentwood,531U.S.at29596.Thedecisionemphasizedboth  thattheplaintiffwasliterallyaprisonerofthestate(and @ thereforeacaptivetowhateverdoctorthestateprovided)andthat   thestatehadanaffirmativeconstitutionalobligationtoprovide `  adequatemedicalcaretoitsprisoners,adutythedoctorwas  @ fulfilling.West,487U.S.at5455(citingEstelle,429U.S.at    10304).Bycontrasttheplaintiffinourcaseisnotrequiredto `  attendMCI;andtheSupremeCourthasrejectedanyfederal   constitutionalobligationonthestatetoprovideeducation,see 0  SanAntonioIndep.Sch.Dist.v.Rodriguez,411U.S.1,35(1973).   ` Admittedly,anargumentcouldbemadeinourcasefor P creatinganewadhocexception.Mainehasundertakeninits 0 Constitutionandstatutestoassuresecondaryeducationtoall p schoolagedchildren(untilage17,itiscompulsory).SeeMe. P Const.art.VIII,pt.1,1;20AM.R.S.A.2,5001A(3).  Withoutsuchaneducationmostchildrenwouldbegreatly  p handicappedinlife.AlthoughMCIisnotapublicschoolinthe   conventionalsense,itisforthoseinthecommunitytheonly @" regulareducationavailableforwhichthestatewillpay.Aschool  $ teacherdismissedbyaprivateschoolwithoutdueprocessislikely `"& tohaveotheroptionsforemployment;astudentwronglyexpelled #@( fromtheonlyfreesecondaryeducationintownisinfarmore % * trouble,unlesshisparentsarerichormobile. '`",  ` Thisthreatofwrongfulexpulsionfromthelocalschool (#. oflastresort(atleastforthosewhocannotpay)istheheartof 0*%0 theimpulsetoexpandthestateactiondoctrinetoreachthiscase. +'2 Facedwiththisthreat,thetemptationmightbestrongtocouple  thefactofstatefundingwiththelastresortstatusofMCIand @ tailorsomenewexception.Butcreatingnewexceptionsisusually   thebusinessoftheSupremeCourt;tomakeonehere,wewouldhave `  tobepersuadedthatthethreatisserious,reasonablywidespread,  @ andwithoutalternativemeansofredress.Noneoftheseelements    issatisfiedinthiscase. `   ` Tobeginwithseriousness,Zachmaywellnothave   receivedtheprecisedueprocessthatwouldberequiredifMCIwere 0  apublicschool,cf.Goss,419U.S.at58184,butneitherwashe  deprivedofallproceduralprotection.Bothheandhisparents P werefullyinformedofthereasonsforthetendaysuspensionand 0 thereisnoindicationthattheyeverdisputedthefactual p allegations.Missing17daysofschoolisacost,butmanyinan P eraofschoolviolencewouldthinkthataschoolfacedwithZach's  apparentbehaviormightwantexpertreassurance.Evenapublic  p schoolstudentmaybesenthomewithoutahearingifateacher   perceivesathreatofviolence,id.at58283. @"  ` NoristhereanyevidencewespeakofBrandeisbrief  $ facts,notcourtroomproofthatcontractschoolsinMaineare `"& discipliningstudentsinanoutrageousfashionandleavingMaine #@( schoolchildrenwithoutaneducation.Therearecosts(rigidities, % * lawsuits),andnotjustbenefitsininflictingconstitutional '`", standardswholesaleuponprivatelygovernedinstitutions.See, (#. e.g.,NewJerseyv.T.L.O.,469U.S.325(1985)(FourthAmendment 0*%0 regulationofsearchesofstudents);Tinkerv.DesMoinesIndep. +'2 Cmty.Sch.Dist.,393U.S.503(1969)(FirstAmendmentlimitations  onstudentdresscodes).Beforecreatinganewstateaction @ category,alowercourtisentitledtoinsistuponsomeshowingof   needbeyondthesmallarguableunfairnessesthatarepartoflife. `   ` Finally,weareconfidentthatstatelawprovides  @ protectionagainstseriousabuse.Asnotedabove,thecontract    givesMCIcontroloverdisciplineofstudents.Buttheschool `  districtsaysthisisqualifiedbypriorgenerallanguageinthe   originalcontractthatMCIassumes"allthelegalrequirements"of 0  theschooldistrict.Theschooldistrictarguesthatthese  requirementsincludethestatutoryobligationofpublicschoolsto P affordahearingforasuspensionofmorethan10days.See20A 0 M.R.S.A.1001(9).Thisreadingofthecontractisdisputedby p MCI,butifacourtacceptedit,itmightgiveZach,asathird P partybeneficiary,acontractclaimagainstMCI.See,e.g.,F.O.  BaileyCo.,Inc.v.Ledgewood,Inc.,603A.2d466,468(Me.1992).  p  ` Muchmoreimportant,wethinkitplainthattheschool   districtisobligedbystatelawtoassurethatZachandanyother @" studentnotshowntobeincorrigiblydangerousordisruptive,cf.  $ 20AM.R.S.A.1001(9)doeshaveafreesecondaryeducation.If `"& ZachwerewronglyexpelledbyMCI(herehewasnotexpelledat #@( all),theschooldistrictwouldstillbeobligedtoprovidehim % * withadequateschooling.Seeid.2;seealsoMe.Const.art. '`", VIII,pt.1,1.Howitwoulddosowouldbeitsprobleminall (#.  likelihooditwouldleanheavilyuponMCItoreadmithimbut 0*%0 surelyaMainecourtwouldcompeltheschooldistricttosatisfy  itsstatutoryobligationbyprovidinghimaneducation. #  2       @   ` Therealityisthatwearealldependentonprivate   entitiesforcrucialservicesand,incertainkeyareas, `  competitionmaynotfurnishprotection.Consider,forexample,  @ townsinwhichelectric,gas,orbusserviceisprivatelyprovided    underfranchise.Thusfar,theSupremeCourthasdeclinedto `  imposedueprocessrequirementsonsuchinstitutions.E.g.,   Jackson,419U.S.at35354&n.9.Itperceives,aswedohere, 0  thatstatestatutoryandadministrativeremediesarenormally  availabletodealwithsuchabusesandthat"constitutionalizing" P regulationofprivateentitiesisalastresort. 0  ` Lessneedstobesaidaboutplaintiff'sothertargeton p appeal:theschooldistrictanditssuperintendent.Certainly, P boththeformer,aswellasthelatterwhenactinginhisofficial  capacity,arestateactors.Averyv.MidlandCounty,390U.S.474,  p 479-80(1968);West,487U.S.at50.Theythereforehave   responsibilityfortheirownactsand,undercertaincircumstances, @" forthemisconductofotherssubjecttotheirauthority.But  $ neitheralternativeisofmuchhelptoplaintiffinthiscase. `"&  ` Plaintiffsaysthatthesedefendantsviolateddueprocess #@( whentheyfailedtoincludeinthecontractwithMCIprotections % * againstimproperdiscipline,suchasspecificstandardsor  proceduresforMCItofolloworsomevetofortheschooldistrict @ overseriousdisciplinaryaction.Thisclaimfacesanuphill   battle:subjecttolimitedqualifications,inactionbystate `  actorsisordinarilynottreatedasadueprocessviolationbythe  @ stateactor,eventhoughthispermitsharmtobecausedbyothers.    SeeDeShaneyv.WinnebagoCountySoc.Servs.Dep't,489U.S.189, `  197200(1989). #  3          ` Plaintiffpointstocasesinwhichthestateactor(e.g., 0  amunicipality)hasresponsibilityforotherstateactors(e.g.,  itspoliceofficers).Althoughrespondeatsuperiordoctrinedoes P notapplyinsuchcases,theSupremeCourthascarvedouta 0 narrowerruleunderwhichinactionnamely,afailuretosupervise p adequatelymayresultinliabilityfortheconstitutional P violationscommittedbystateactorsubordinates.CityofCanton  v.Harris,489U.S.378,38689(1989);Monellv.Dep'tofSoc.  p Servs.,436U.S.658,690(1978).ButMCIwasnotastateactorat   all,letaloneasubordinate,sotheMonelldoctrinedoesnot @" apply.x #  4        $  ` Plaintiffalsopointsoutthatinthiscasetheschool `"& districtactedbychoosing(aspermittedbystatelaw)to"contract #@( out"toaprivateactoritsownstatelawobligationtoassure  educationforstudentsinthedistrict.Butlocalitiescontract @ allthetimewithprivateentitiestoprovidelocalservices(e.g.,   torepairroadsorcollecttrash).Thelocalitydoesnotthereby `  becomeliableundertheDueProcessClauseforfailingtoinsist  @ thattheprivateentityofferexactlythesamelevelofprocedural    protectionstoemployeesorbeneficiariesoftheservicesthat `  governmentmustaffordwhenitactsforitself.    ` Ashisfinalargument,Zacharguesthattheschool 0  districthadadueprocessobligationtoholditsownhearingand,  ifitdisagreedwithMCI'ssuspension,providehimwithan P alternativeplacement.Thisclaimappearstobeavariantofthe 0 onejustdiscussed.Insofarasitisaseparateargument,the p districtcourtsaidthatithadnotbeenpreservedanddeclinedto P addressit.Logiodice,170F.Supp.2dat30n.12.Plaintiff's  briefmakeslittleeffortandcertainlynotapersuasiveoneto  p showthatthedistrictcourtwasmistaken.    ` Thesefederalconstitutionalclaimsaretobe @" distinguished,ofcourse,frompotentialclaimsavailabletoZach  $ underMainelaw.Intheabsenceoffederalclaims,thedistrict `"& courtwasentitledtoleavethosetothestatecourts,asitdid #@( here.28U.S.C.1367(c)(2000).Inthis,asinotherrespects, % * thedistrictcourt'sopinionisamodelofcarefulanalysis. '`",  ` Affirmed.Eachsideshallbearitsowncostsonthis (#. appeal. 0*%0 @  Dissentingopinionfollows.  +'2  ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge,dissenting. Theissuesinthis  casearedifficult.Thedistrictcourtexploredthemablyinits  decision.Sotoohasthemajority.Intheend,however,I  p disagreewiththemajoritythattreatingtheMaineCentral   Institute(MCI)asastateactoronthefactsofthiscasewould @  requireaninsupportableexpansionofstateactiondoctrine.    Instead,Ibelievethattheapplicationoftheentwinementdoctrine `  tothefactsofthiscaserequirestheconclusionthatMCIand @  MaineSchoolAdministrativeDistrictNo.53(MSADNo.53)are   entwinedinthecommonenterpriseofprovidingpubliclyfunded ` educationtonearlyallhighschoolstudentsinMSADNo.53.  Furthermore,otherindiciaofstateactionpresentheremakethe 0 actionsofMCIfairlyattributabletothestate.Forallpractical  purposes,MCIisthepublichighschoolofMSADNo.53andshould P betreatedassuchwhenitdisciplinesapubliclyfundedstudentin 0 amannerthatarguablycontravenesthedueprocessguaranteesof p theFourteenthAmendment. P    I. Background  " l ` Althoughthemajorityhasfairlysetforththefacts p!$ here,Ialsowishtosetforthsomefactsimportantforafull #P& understandingofthiscase. $(  A.TheIncident   &p!*  ` TwoangryoutburstsfromLogiodiceonJanuary19,2000, (P#, initiatedthechainofeventsthatledtothislawsuit.Logiodice )$. arrivedinthegymnasiumatMCIwithseveralofhisclassmates  +p&0 twentyminutesbeforethescheduledstartofhismidterm  examinationinAdvancedPlacementEnglishaX%XX X%.Hewasdrinkingasoda. @ TheproctorfortheexamaskedLogiodiceforhisdrinkandputit   onthebleachers.AccordingtoLogiodice,"[b]ecausethetesthad `  notstartedand...others[were]drinkingandeating,"he  @ retrievedhisdrink.Whentheproctoragaininsistedontakingthe    drinkfromhim,Logiodiceshoutedathimandrefusedtogivehim `  thedrink.TheproctorthensentforDeanofStudentsJohn   Marquis,whoquestionedLogiodiceabouthisreactiontothe 0  proctor.LogiodicerespondedangrilytoDeanMarquis,who  permittedhimtotaketheexaminationbutalsodecidedtosuspend P himfortendays. 0  ` DeanMarquisthencalledLogiodice'smotheratwork,and p askedhertotakehimhome.ShecametomeetwithMarquis,who P toldherthatLogiodicewouldbesuspendedfortendaysfor  swearingandforrefusingtocomplywithateacher'srequests.  p AccordingtoLogiodice,he"wasnotpresentatthismeeting,nor   washeallowedtopresenthisversionoftheeventthathad @" occurredoranymitigativefactors."However,hismotherdid  $ protestthelengthofthesuspensionatthisinitialmeeting. `"&  ` Laterthatday,bothofLogiodice'sparentsmetwithDean #@( Marquis.AlthoughtheyconcededthatLogiodiceacted % * inappropriately,theyalsoaskedMarquistoreconsiderthelength '`", andscopeofthesuspension.BothparentspleadedwithMarquisto (#. permitLogiodicetoparticipateinextracurricularactivities 0*%0 duringthesuspension.Ifhewereexcludedfromsuchactivities, +'2 hewouldlikelylosehisleadroleintheschoolplayandhisplace  onthewrestlingteam.Marquisrefusedtheserequests. @  ` OnoraboutJanuary22,Logiodice'sparentsreceiveda   letterfromMarquis,informingthemthatLogiodicecouldnotreturn `  toschooluntilhewasenrolledincounselingandpasseda"safety  @ evaluation"certifyingthathewasnotathreattohimselforother    students.Logiodice'sparentscalledMarquisonJanuary22and `  toldhimthatitwasdifficulttofindatherapistcoveredby   insurancewhocouldseeLogiodiceimmediately.ByFebruary1,they 0  stillhadnotfoundacounselorwillingtooffersuchan  evaluation.Logiodice'stendaysuspensionwouldhaveconcluded P thatdayifhehadnotbeenrequiredtoobtainasafetyevaluation. 0 Hopingtoreturnhissontoschool,Logiodice'sfathercalled p PrincipalCummingsonFebruary1andaskedifLogiodicecouldbe P readmittedpendingasafetyevaluation.WhenCummingsrefused,  Logiodice'sfatherofferedtostaywithhissontoensurethatno  p "safetysituation"arose.Cummingswouldnotrelent.    ` Logiodice'sparentsthencalledDr.Lester# X%XXaX%3#aX%XX X%,acounselor @" coveredbytheirinsuranceplan.AccordingtoLogiodice'smother,  $ Dr.LestertoldLogiodice'sfatherthat"youaren'tgoingtofind `"& anybodytogivea,quote,unquote,safetyevaluation.That'snot #@( somethingthat'sdone."Dr.LesterdidagreetocallDeanMarquis % * atMCItofindout"exactlywhatthey'relookingfor."After '`", speakingtoMarquis,Dr.LestertoldLogiodice'smotherthat"he (#.  couldn'tdowhattheywereaskingfor";however,hedidofferto 0*%0 seeLogiodice.Logiodice'sparentsagreedtosetanappointment  forLogiodicetoseeDr.Lester. @   ` Logiodice'sparentsalsospoketoSuperintendent   McCannellofMSADNo.53,andpresentedtheircasetotheBoardof `  MSADNo.53.AtameetingonFebruary1,2000,McCannelltold  @ Logiodice'sparentsthathewouldtrytohelpthem.McCannell    wrotealettertoPrincipalCummingsofMCIexpressingconcernthat `  Logiodice'sindefinitesuspensionviolatedhisdueprocessrights   andMainestatelawsinceithadbeenimposedwithoutahearing. 0   ` McCannellandCummingscalledLogiodice'sparentson  February8(seventeendaysafterthesuspensionbegan)tonotify P themthatLogiodicewouldbeallowedtoreturntoschoolif 0 Logiodice'scounselormetwiththemafterasecondsessionwith p Logiodice.Dr.Lesteragreed,andonFebruary11,2000,Logiodice, P hisparents,Dr.Lester,McCannell,Cummings,andseveralMCI  teachersallmet.Atthismeeting,Dr.Lesterexpressedhis  p opinionthatLogiodicedidnotposeathreattohimselforothers.   AccordingtoLogiodice'smother,Dr.Lesteressentiallytoldthe @" MCIauthoritiesatthemeetingthattheyhad"overreacted."After  $ thismeeting,Logiodicewaspermittedtoreturntoschoolon `"& February15,2000. #@(  B.TheDistrictCourt'sDecision  % *  ` Logiodicefiledsuit,allegingthathissuspension `'", violatedtheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,which (@$. prohibitsthestatefromdeprivingitscitizensofaproperty *%0 interest(here,ineducation)withoutdueprocessoflaw.SeeGoss ,`'2 v.Lopez,419U.S.565,574(1975)(holdingthat"theStateis  constrainedtorecognizeastudent'slegitimateentitlementtoa @ publiceducationasapropertyinterestwhichisprotectedbythe   DueProcessClauseandwhichmaynotbetakenawayformisconduct `  withoutadherencetotheminimumproceduresrequiredbythat  @ Clause").Recountingtheeventsinthiscase,thedistrictcourt    observedthatMCIofficialssuspendedLogiodicewithout"providing `  [him]priornoticeorofferinghimanopportunitytoexplainhis   behavior."Logiodicev.Trs.ofMe.Cent.Inst.,170F.Supp.2d 0  17,20(D.Me.2001).However,thedistrictcourtenteredsummary  judgmentfordefendants,concludingthatMCIwasnotastateactor P and,relatedly,thattherewasnobasisforascribingliabilityto 0 theotherdefendantsunder1983. p    II.Entwinement  P U A.GeneralPrinciples  0  ` Anostensiblyprivateentityactsundercolorofstate  law"whenitis'entwinedwithgovernmentalpolicies' orwhen P  governmentis'entwinedin[its]managementorcontrol.'" 0 " BrentwoodAcad.v.Tenn.SecondarySch.AthleticAss'n,531U.S. !$ 288,296(2001)(quotingEvansv.Newton,382U.S.296,299,301 P#& (1966)).Entwinementdoctrineidentifiesstateactionin $0 ( situationswhereneitherthegovernmentnortheprivateentity p&!* controlsagivensphereofactivity,butbotharesoinvolvedin (P#, thatactivitythattheactionsoftheprivateactorinthatsphere )$. are"fairlyattributable"tothestate.Id.at295.  +p&0  ` Besidestheentwinementtest(andtherelatedsymbiotic  relationshiptest),f #  1      ׀therearetwomaintestsofstateaction @ relevanttothiscase:thepublicfunctiontestandthenexustest.   Perkinsv.LondonderryBasketballClub,196F.3d13,18(1stCir. `  1999)(notingthat"courtsconventionallyhave...deem[ed]a  @ privateentitytohavebecomeastateactorif(1)itassumesa    traditionalpublicfunctionwhenitundertakestoperformthe `  challengedconduct,or(2)anelaboratefinancialorregulatory   nexustiesthechallengedconducttotheState,or(3)asymbiotic 0  relationshipexistsbetweentheprivateentityand% e %etheState").  Publicfunctiondoctrinepermitsafindingofstateactionwhena P "privateentity[has]assumedpowers'"traditionallyexclusively 0 reservedtotheState."'"Rockwellv.CapeCodHosp.,26F.3d254, p 258(1stCir.1994)(quotingRodriguesv.Furtado,950F.2d805, P 813(1stCir.1991)(quotingJacksonv.Metro.EdisonCo.,419U.S.  345,352(1974))).Thenexustestexamines "whetherthegovernment  p exercisedcoercivepowerorprovidedsuchsignificantencouragement   thatthecomplainedofmisconduct...mustbedeemedtobethe @" conductofthegovernment."BarriosVelazquezv.Asociacionde  $ EmpleadosdelEstadoLibreAsociadodePuertoRico,84F.3d487, `"& 493(1stCir.1996).Thus,boththepublicfunctionandnexus #@( testsareprimarilyconcernedwithcontrol:theformeridentifies % * stateactionwhereaprivateactorcontrolsafunction  traditionallyperformedbythegovernmentexclusively,whilethe @ latteridentifiesstateactionwherethegovernmenteffectively   controlsaprivateactor.Bycontrast,entwinementdoctrine `  identifiesstateactioninsituationswhereneitherthegovernment  @ northeostensiblyprivateactorcontrolsagivensphereof    activity,butbotharesoinvolvedinthatactivitythatthe `  actionsoftheprivateactorinthatsphereare"fairly   attributable"tothestate.Brentwood,531U.S.at295. 0   ` Thedifferentfocusoftheentwinementtestis  complementedbyadifferentstyleofanalysisthanthatprevailing P inthepublicfunctionandnexustests.Applicationofthelatter 0 teststypicallyturnsonrelativelystraightforward,concrete p inquiriesforexample,whetheraprivateactoronceperformedthe P purportedlyexclusivelytraditionallypublicfunction,see  Rockwell,26F.3d25859,orwhetherthegovernmentactually  p commandedtheactionchallengedinthegivensuit,seeBlumv.   Yaretsky,457U.S.991,100405(1982)(holdingthat @" "constitutionalstandardsareinvokedonlywhenitcanbesaidthat  $ theStateisresponsibleforthespecificconductofwhichthe `"& plaintiffcomplains").Entwinementanalysisismorenuancedand #@( complex,examiningwhethertherangeofcontactsbetweenthestate % * andtheostensiblyprivateactoramounttoacriticalmassof '`", entwinement,therebyrenderingtheprivateentity'sactions"fairly (#. attributable"tothestate.SeeBrentwood,531U.S.at295.As 0*%0 onecommentatorhasobserved,theentwinementtest"examinesthe +'2 totalityofcircumstancessurroundingrelationshipsofstatesand  privateentitieswhendeterminingwhethersuchrelationships @ resultedinstateaction."g #  2      ׀    B.TheBrentwoodFactors  `   ` InBrentwoodtheSupremeCourtaddressedwhetherthe @  TennesseeSecondarySchoolAthleticAssociation(TSSAA)wasastate    actorinitsenforcementofdisciplinaryrulesagainstmember `  schools.TheTSSAApromotedandregulatedathleticeventsamong @  thehighschoolsofTennessee.TheCourtidentifiedseveralfacts   indicatingthatthe"nominallyprivatecharacterofthe[TSSAA]is ` overbornebythepervasiveentwinementofpublicinstitutionsand  publicofficialsinitscompositionandworkings."Id.at298. 0  ` First,theCourtfoundthatpublicschoolsdominatedthe  membershipoftheTSSAA290ofits345votingmemberswerepublic P schools.Id.at29899.Thesepublicschoolscontractedwiththe 0 TSSAAandplayedanimportantroleinrunningit.Theiragents p (includingprincipalsandsuperintendents)servedonthenine P  memberLegislativeCouncilthatpromulgatedtherecruitingrules " challengedinthecase.Id.at299.AstheCourtobserved,  !p$ "[s]inceapickupsystemofinterscholasticgameswouldnotdo, "& thesepublic[schools]need[ed]somemechanismtoproducerulesand @$( regulatecompetition."Id.at299.ByassigningtheTSSAAthis % !* role,"the290publicschoolsofTennesseebelongingtoitcan  sensiblybeseenasexercisingtheirownauthoritytomeettheir @ ownresponsibilities."Id.    ` TheCourtalsocloselyanalyzedthefinancial `  relationshipbetweenthepublicschoolsandtheTSSAA.Although  @ theTSSAAonlyreceived4%ofitsrevenuefromduespaidbymember    schools,itsmainsourceofrevenuewas"gatereceiptsat `  tournamentsamongthememberschools."Id..Thisarrangement   permittedtheTSSAAto"enjoy[]theschools'moneymakingcapacity 0  asitsown."Id.Reviewingthepublicschools'financial  relationshipwiththeTSSAAandtheirroleinitsleadership,the P CourtconcludedthattheAssociationcouldnotbedeemedamere 0 contractor:"Unlikemerepublicbuyersofcontractservices,whose p paymentsforservicesrendereddonotconverttheserviceproviders P intopublicactors,seeRendellBaker[v.Kohn,457U.S.830,839  843(1982)],theschoolshereobtainmembershipintheservice  p organizationandgiveupsourcesoftheirownincometotheir   collectiveassociation."Id.at299. @"  ` TheCourtfoundsomeadditionalindiciaofentwinementat  $ thestatelevel:membersofthestateBoardofEducationservedon `"& theTSSAA'sboard,andthestateBoardhaddesignatedtheTSSAAas #@( "regulatorofinterscholasticathleticsinpublicschools"from % * 1972to1996.Id.at300.Furthermore,"the [TSSAA]'sministerial '`", employees[were]treatedasstateemployeestotheextentofbeing (#.  eligibleformembershipinthestateretirementsystem."Id. 0*%0  ` Brentwoodthusidentifiedacloserelationshipbetween   TSSAAandthestateintwocategories# X%XXaX%#aX%XX X%:"bottomup"publicinfluence @ overtheassociationviatheparticipationofitspublicschool   membersinTSSAAleadership,and"topdown"influenceexercisedby `  stateofficialsentitledtoserveontheTSSAA'sboard.Id.at  @ 30001.Takentogether,thenumerousandsignificantcontacts    betweentheTSSAAandgovernmentactorswithinthesecategoriesled `  theCourttoconcludethattheTSSAA'sentwinementwithstate   actorsrendereditastateactoritself. 0   C.TheMCIFactors    ` Inmyview,thereisatleastasmuchentwinementbetween  MCIandgovernmentalentitiesinMaineastherewasbetweenthe 0 TSSAAandpublicactorsinTennessee.AlthoughMCIdoesnot  operateatthestatewidescaleoftheTSSAA,itsresponsibilityfor P theeducationofpubliclyfundedhighschoolstudentsinMSADNo. 0 53mirrorstheTSSAA'sresponsibilityfortheregulationof p athleticeventsamongthepublicschoolsofTennessee.Justas P  Tennesseepublicschools"exercis[ed]theirownauthoritytomeet " theirownresponsibilities"bydelegatingtheregulationof  !p$ interscholasticathleticeventstotheTSSAA,id.at299,MSADNo. "& 53hasexerciseditsauthoritybydelegatingtoMCIits @$( responsibilityforeducatinghighschoolstudentsinthedistrict. % !* Moreover,MCIisnotjustaproviderofservicestoMSADNo.53. `'", Itisapartnerofthedistrictineducatingthedistrict'shigh (@$.  schoolstudents. *%0  ` MSADNo.53isthegovernmentalentityresponsiblefor   educatingchildreninPittsfield,Burnham,andDetroit,Maine. @ MCIistheonlyhighschoolpublicorprivatelocatedwithinthe   district.MSADNo.53sendsnearlyallofitshighschoolstudents `  toMCIatpublicexpense.Approximately400ofthe500studentsat  @ MCIarepubliclyfundedbyMSADNo.53.     ` MCIandMSADNo.53havesignedaseriesoftenyear `  contracts(fortermsstartingin1983,1993,and2003)setting   forththeirrespectiverolesandresponsibilitiesineducatingthe 0  highschoolstudentsinMSADNo.53.Thetwoentitiesagreedthat  ajointcommittee ,consistingoffourmembersfromeachentity, P wouldadjudicateanyconflictsthatmayariseininterpretingthe 0 contract.ThecontractbetweenMSADNo.53andMCIineffectat p thetimeofthisdisputegaveMCI'strustees"thesolerightto P promulgate,administer,andenforceallrulesandregulations  pertainingtostudentbehavior[and]discipline,"butalsoobliged  p MCItoassume"allthelegalrequirements"oftheschooldistrict.   Theprecisemeaningofthislatterphrasewasthecruxofa @" disagreementbetweenMSADNo.53SuperintendentTerranceMcCannell  $ andPrincipalCummingsoverMCI'sobligationtoprovideLogiodice `"& ahearingbeforedisciplininghim.McCannellbelievedthatfederal #@( andstatelawrequiredMSADNo.53,andthusMCI,toafforddue % * processprotectionstopubliclyfundedstudentsatMCI.Cummings '`", believedthatMCIwasaprivateschoolthatdidnothavetoprovide (#. suspendedorexpelledstudentswithahearing.Thoughtheystill 0*%0 disagreeaboutthemeaningofthecontract,McCannellandCummings +'2 workedtogethertodevisearesponsetoLogiodice'ssituationonce  thedifficultyofobtaininga"safetyevaluation"becameapparent. @  ` TheircommoninvolvementinLogiodice'scasereflecteda   longhistoryofformalandinformalcooperationbetweentheleaders `  andstaffofMSADNo.53andMCI.SuperintendentMcCannelland  @ PrincipalCummingsroutinelyconsulteachotheronmany    administrativeandscholasticmatters;Cummingsattendstheboard `  meetingsofMSADNo.53regularly.Theirrespectivestaffswork   togethereachyeartoprepareajointacademiccalendar,andMCI 0  deferstoMSADNo.53'sdecisionsregardingschoolclosuredueto  inclementweather.MCIstaffprovidesattendancereportstoMSAD P No.53. 0  ` Beyondthesebureaucraticmatters,MSADNo.53playsa p crucialrolein"transitioning"studentsfromtheindisputably P publicWarsawMiddleSchoolintoMCI.MSADNo.53requires  studentstomeetwithrepresentativesofMCIduringtheireighth  p gradeyeartoplanstudyscheduleswiththem.Academicrecords   flowfromMSADNo.53'smiddleschooldirectlytoMCIwithout @" noticetoparentsthattheirchildrenwillbeattendingaprivate  $ school.Thisadministrativeconveniencehaslegalsignificance: `"& federallawrequiresschoolstomaintainconfidentialityof #@( educationalrecordsandplacesconditionsonthetransferofsuch % * recordstooutsideagenciesorschools.20U.S.C.1232g(b)(1). '`", MCIisnottreatedasanoutsideagencyorschool. (#.  ` NeitherthestateofMainenorMSADNo.53treatsMCIas 0*%0 amerevendor,exchangingeducationalservicesforstatefunding. +'2 MSADNo.53isstatutorilyobligedtoassistMCIwithfacilities  maintenanceanddebtservice.Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.20A, @ 5806(2).Itpaysanamountequaltotenpercentofthepublicly   fundedstudents'tuitioneachyearforthispurpose.h #  3      ׀Id.MSAD `  No.53fundsMCI'sspecialeducationprogramandprovides  @ extracurriculartransportationforallMCIstudents,whofrequently    competewithstudentsenrolledinpublichighschools.MCIderives `  morethanhalfitsincomefromMSADNo.53tuition.SeeLogiodice,   170F.Supp.2dat18(observingthat"[f]iftyonepercentofMCI's 0  incomeisderivedfromtuitionpaymentsfromMSADNo.53").MCI's  facultyhandbookstatesthatMCIispartofaK12educational P system. 0  ` Mirroringthe"topdown"entwinementfoundinBrentwood, p 531U.S.at300,severalMainestatutesregulatetherelationship P betweenschooladministrativedistrictsandcontractschoolslike  MCI.Mainepermitsschooladministrativedistrictstocontract  p with"aprivateschoolapprovedfortuitionpurposes"inorderto   provideeducationtodistrictstudents.Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. @" tit.20-A# X%XXaX%{#aX%XX X%,1258(2).Moreover,Maine'sDepartmentofEducation  $ andStateBoardofEducationaredevelopinga"comprehensive, `"& statewidesystemoflearningresults."Id.6209.Publicschools #@( are"requiredtoparticipate"inthesystem,asare"private % * school[s]approvedfortuitionthatenroll[]atleast60%publicly '`", fundedstudents."Id.ThusMCIwhichenrollsapproximately80%  publiclyfundedstudentsmustassurethatitsentirecurriculum @ andcareerpreparationprogramreflectstatemandatedgoals.Id.   Thestatutorylinedrawingthatledtotheschool'sinclusionin `  thatsystemisinstructive.ThestateofMainerecognizesthat  @ ostensiblyprivateschoolswithstudentbodiesdominatedby    publiclyfundedstudentsareessentiallypubliceducators,properly `  subjecttothesamerulesandguidelinesthatgovernofficially   publicschools. 0   ` Thereisacloseparallelbetweenthepublicschool  membershipoftheTSSAAandthepubliclyfundedstudentbodyof P MCI.Theassociationhad84%publichighschoolmembers,whileMCI 0 has80%publichighschoolstudents.Ofcourse,thestudents' p membershipinMCIisnotdirectlyanalogoustothehighschools' P membershipinTSSAA;theymayonly"join"fortheyearstheyare  eligibleforsecondaryeducation.However,Mainestudentsare  p compelledbythestatetogotoschooluntilage17,see   Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.20-A# X%XXaX%#aX%XX X%,5001A(1),# X%XXaX%#aX%XX X%ԀwhileTennesseenever @" forceditshighschoolstojointheTSSAA.Asthemajoritypoints  $ out,MCI"isforthoseinthecommunitytheonlyregulareducation `"& availableforwhichthestatewillpay."Highschoolstudentsin #@( MSADNo.53mayonlyavoidattendingMCIatahighcostto % * themselvesortheirfamilies:theycaneitherviolatethe '`", compulsoryeducationlaworleavetheirpeersandcommunitytofind (#. privateeducationelsewhere.ThisdimensionofthecasemakesMCI 0*%0 farmoreofastateactorwithrespecttothepubliclyfunded +'2 studentsinitsstudentbodythantheTSSAAwaswithrespecttoits  publicschoolmembers,whoseparticipationinthatorganizationwas @ purelyvoluntary.Id.at306(Thomas,J.,dissenting)(observing   that"theTSSAAdoesnotrequirethatpublicschoolsconstitutea `  setpercentageofitsmembership,and,indeed,nopublicschool  @ needjointheTSSAA").     ` MCIissoreliantonpublicsourcesoffundingand `  support,andMSADNo.53issoreliantonMCItoeducateitshigh   schoolers,thattheyarenotmerelycontractorsengagedinan 0  "arm'slength"transaction.Theirtenyearcontracts(themaximum  lengthpermissibleunderstatelaw,seeMe.Rev.Stat.Ann. P tit.20-A# X%XXaX%k#aX%XX X%,# X%XXaX%#aX%XX X%Ԁ1258(2))entwinetheminthejointprojectof 0 educatingthepubliclyfundedstudentsofMSADNo.53.Thetwo p institutionsareseamlesslyintegratedinthejointprojectof P providingeducationtopubliclyfundedhighschoolstudentsinthe  district.TheirentwinementandmutualdependencemakeMCIthe  p publichighschoolofMSADNo.53.     ` Althoughthemajorityacknowledgesthattherearea @" numberof"connectionsbetweenthestate,theschooldistrict,and  $ MCI,"itconcludesthattwofactsdecisivelydemonstratealackof `"& entwinementhere:MCIisrunbyprivatetrustees,andMSADNo.53 #@( didnotcontrolthedisciplinaryprocessthatresultedin % * Logiodice's'ssuspension.However,similarconditionsexistedin '`", Brentwood,andtheydidnotpreventafindingofstateaction (#.  there.  0*%0  ` LikethoseofMCI,theTSSAA's"rules[were]enforcednot   byastateagencybutbyitsownboardofcontrol."Brentwood,531 @ U.S.at308(Thomas,J.,dissenting).Ifwewereapplyingthe   nexusanalysishere,itwouldbeimportanttodeterminewhohas `  ultimateauthorityoverthepoliciesofMCIforthestudentsin  @ MSADNo.53.SeeBarriosVelazquez,84F.3dat493.However,when    "thefactsjustifyaconclusionofstateactionunderthecriterion `  ofentwinement,[that]conclusion[is]innosenseunsettledmerely   becauseothercriteriaofstateactionmaynotbesatisfiedbythe 0  samefacts."Brentwood,531U.S.at302.Stateactionhasbeen  identifiedundertheentwinementtestevenwhereprivatetrustees P controltherelevantinstitution.Brentwooditselfwasbasedin 0 partonEvansv.Newton,wheretheCourtfoundstateactioneven p thoughthetrusteesofaparkwereprivatecitizens.SeeEvans, P 382U.S.at302(holdingthat"thepubliccharacterofthispark  requiresthatitbetreatedasapublicinstitutionsubjecttothe  p commandoftheFourteenthAmendment,regardlessofwhonowhas   titleunderstatelaw");seealsoMarshv.Alabama,326U.S.501 @" (1946)(findingstateactionwhereprivatecorporationcontrolled  $ allrealestateintown).Thekeyinquiryisthelevelofjoint `"& involvementinacommonenterprisenotwhetherthegovernment #@( ultimatelycontrolsthechallengedconduct.  % *   ` Althoughitssuperintendentwasdeeplyinvolvedin '`", Logiodice'scaseafterhissuspensionexceededtendays,MSADNo. (#. 53didnotdirectMCItodisciplineLogiodice.Themajorityholds 0*%0 that,becauseMSADNo.53wasnotinvolvedinthe"particular +'2 activitysoughttobeclassedasstateaction,"Blummilitates  againstdeemingMCIastateactor.SeeBlum,457U.S.at100405. @ ThisfactwhileimportantinanexuscaselikeBlumisnot   dispositiveundertheentwinementdoctrine.Therefore,theSupreme `  CourtinBrentwoodstillfoundentwinementeventhoughthestate  @ ofTennesseewasnotinvolvedwiththedisciplinaryaction    challengedthere,orthepromulgationofrulesgoverningit: `  0 ` [T]heStateofTennesseehasneverhadany   involvementintheparticularactiontakenbythe h  TSSAAinthiscase:theenforcementoftheTSSAA's 0  recruitingruleprohibitingmembersfromusing H  "undueinfluence"onstudentsortheirparentsor  guardians"tosecureortoretainastudentfor  athleticpurposes."Thereisnoindicationthatthe P Statehaseverhadanyinterestinhowschools h choosetoregulaterecruiting.0` `  L4iO  5  6!O"   7p."ZBrentwood,531U.S.at308(Thomas,J.,dissenting)(footnoteand p citationsomitted).Tennessee'slackofinvolvementdidnotmatter P therebecauseBlum'semphasisonthestrengthofthenexusbetween  thestateandtheprivateactorwithrespecttothechallenged  p conductpredatedBrentwood'sarticulationofthemodernentwinement   doctrine.SeeCooper,supra,35CreightonL.Rev.at985 @" (describinghowBrentwoodrevivedmethodsofanalysisemployedby  $ theSupremeCourtpriortoBlum,whenitusually"didnotanalyze `"& stateactionclaimsbyexaminingthespecificconductin #@( question").Whilerelevanttotheentwinementinquiry,the % * "specificconduct"factoremphasizedinBlumisnotcontrolling.  '`",  ` Insum,givenallofthefactorscitedhere,Iconclude (#. thattheapplicationoftheentwinementdoctrineelaboratedbythe 0*%0 SupremeCourtinBrentwoodrequirestheconclusionthatMCIand +'2 MSADNo.53aresoentwinedinthecommonenterpriseofproviding  publiclyfundededucationtonearlyallhighschoolstudentsinthe @ districtthatMCIshouldbedeemedastateactoranswerableforits   actionspursuantto1983.  `  # X%XXaX%W#aX%XX X%  III.Westv.Atkins   @ )3,X` X,X` X3 ` AlthoughIbelievethattheentwinementdoctrinesuffices    toestablishMCI'sstatusasastateactor,Ifindadditional `  supportforthisconclusioninthefindingofstateaction# X%XXaX%(#aX%XX X%ԀinWest @  v.Atkins,487U.S.42(1988),whereagovernmentalauthority   delegatedanimportantpublicresponsibilitytoanostensibly ` privateparty.# X%XXaX%*#aX%XX X%IagreewiththemajoritythateducationinMaine  hasnottraditionallybeenafunctionperformedexclusivelybythe 0 state.Giventhisfact,themajorityproperlydeclinestofind  stateactionbyMCIunderthepublicfunctiondoctrine,which P appliesonlywhereaprivateactorperformsafunction 0 "traditionallyexclusivelyreserved"tothestate.FlaggBros.v. p Brooks,439U.S.149,158(1978)(internalquotationmarks P  omitted).However,theSupremeCourthasalsoindicatedthatthe " performanceofapublicfunctionintandemwithotherindiciaof  !p$ stateactionmayrenderaprivateentityastateactor,evenif "& thatfunctionisnottraditionallyreservedexclusivelytothe @$( state.See,e.g.,Edmonsonv.LeesvilleConcreteCo.,500U.S. % !* 614,62124(1991)(supportingfindingofstateactionwith `'", evidencethatthechallengedconductinvolved"atraditional (@$. governmentalfunction"withoutexaminingwhetherthefunctionwas *%0 traditionallytheexclusiveprerogativeofthestate).InWest, ,`'2 theCourtdidnotbaseitsdecisiononthepublicfunction  doctrine,butfocusedinsteadonthefactthatthestatehad @ delegatedtoaprivateactoradutyitwasaffirmativelyobligated   toprovide.Thesameistruehere.# X%XXaX%+#aX%XX X% `   ` TheSupremeCourtheldinWestthataprisondoctorwas  @ astateactorwithinthemeaningof1983,eventhoughthedoctor    wasanindependentcontractornotformallyemployedbythestate. `  Id.at5657.Infindingstateaction,theCourtfocusedonthe   doctor'sroleinofferingservicesthatthestatewas 0  constitutionallyobligedtoprovide.Theostensiblyprivate  contractorDr.Atkins"workedasaphysicianattheprisonhospital P fullyvestedwithstateauthoritytofulfillessentialaspectsof 0 the%  %h5duty,placedontheStatebytheEighthAmendmentandstate p law,toprovideessentialmedicalcaretothosetheStatehad P incarcerated."Id.   ` JustasDr.AtkinscontractedwiththestateofSouth  p Carolinatoperformitsnondiscretionarydutytoprovidehealth   caretoprisoners,MCIcontractedwithMSADNo.53toperformits @" nondiscretionarydutytoeducateitshighschoolstudents.Asin  $ West,"[t]heStateboreanaffirmativeobligationtoprovide `"& [educationtotheappellant];theStatedelegatedthatfunctionto #@( [MCI];and[MCI]voluntarilyassumedthatobligationbycontract." % * Id.at56. '`",  ` Westmayseeminappositeherebecauseprisonersenjoya (#. federalconstitutionalrighttomedicalcare,whilestudentshave 0*%0 noparallelfederalentitlementtoeducation.CompareYoungbergv. +'2 Romeo,457U.S.307,315,324(1982)(recognizingprisoner'srights  tomedicalcare,food,shelter,andclothing),withSanAntonio @ Indep.Sch.Dist.v.Rodriguez,411U.S.1,3539(1973)(declining   torecognizeafederalconstitutionalrighttoeducation). `  However,MainestatelawobligestheMainelegislatureto  @ "require[]theseveraltownstomakesuitableprovision,attheir    ownexpense,forthesupportandmaintenanceofpublicschools." `  Me.Const.art.VIII,pt.1,1;seealsoMe.Rev.Stat.Ann.   tit.20-A# X%XXaX%}2#aX%XX X%,# X%XXaX%<#aX%XX X%Ԁ2,5001A(3).AssurelyasWesthadarightunder 0  federallawtomedicalservices,studentsinMainehavearight  underitsconstitutiontoaneducation.Moreover,inthedimension P thatisrelevanttothiscase--theprovisionofpubliclyfunded 0 educationthestudentsinthedistrictareasdependentonMCIas p Westwasonthestatefortheprovisionofmedicalservices.For P highschoolstudentsinthedistrict,MCIprovidestheonly  educationavailableforwhichthedistrictwillpay.  p  `  Althoughthereareprecedentsrejectingclaimsofstate   actionbyprivateschools,thoseholdingswerebasedonfactsthat @" differsubstantiallyfromthosehere.MCIdoesnotmerelyserve  $ onesubsetofthestudentpopulation.Instead,itisobligatedby `"& contracttoeducateallhighschoolstudentsinMSADNo.53. #@( CompareRendellBaker,457U.S.at832(consideringthestatusof % * aschoolthat"specialize[d]indealingwithstudentswhohave '`", experienceddifficultycompletingpublichighschools"),andRobert (#. S.v.StetsonSch.,Inc.,256F.3d159,16263(3dCir.2001) 0*%0 (decliningtofindstateactionbya"private,residential +'2 institution"designedtoeducatesexoffendersandnot"obligated  toacceptanystudent")# X%XXaX%)=#aX%XX X%.Otherprecedentsrejectingclaimsthat @ contractschoolsarestateactorsinvolvedtheirteachers,not   theirstudents.SeeRendellBaker,457U.S.at851(Marshall,J., `  dissenting)(notingthat"themajority...focusesonthefact  @ thattheactionsatissueherearepersonneldecisions[and]would    apparentlyconcedethatactionsdirectlyaffectingthestudents `  couldbetreatedasundercolorofstatelaw,sincetheschoolis   fulfillingtheState'sobligationstothosechildren");Johnsonv. 0  PinkertonAcad.,861F.2d335,338(1stCir.1988)(notingthat,  "[i]ftherewereresponsibilitiesinthepresentcase,theywould P relatetostudents,andnottoteachers");seealsoRendellBaker 0 v.Kohn,641F.2d14,26(1stCir.1981)(1982)(observingthat p "thosestudents...compelledtoattend[school]underthe P state'scompulsoryeducationlaws,wouldhaveastrongerargument  thandoplaintiff[][teachers]thattheschool'sactiontowards  p themistaken'undercolorof'statelaw"),aff'd,457U.S.830# X%XXaX%C#aX%XX X%   (1982).Whileateacherdoesnotdependonanyoneschoolfor @" employmentopportunities,studentsinagivenschooldistrict(such  $ asthehighschoolstudentsofMSADNo.53)maybeentirely `"& dependentononeschoolforapubliclyfundededucation. #@( Therefore,findingstateactionhereunderWestwouldbeconsistent % * withextantstateactiondecisionsregardingcontractschools. '`",    IV.OtherConsiderations (#.  K ` WhileBrentwoodandWestsupportafindingofstate *%0 action,"[e]venfactsthatsufficetoshowpublicaction...may ,`'2 beoutweighedinthenameofsomevalueatoddswithfindingpublic  accountabilityinthecircumstances."Brentwood,531U.S.at303. @ ThemajorityconcludesthatLogiodice'sgrievanceswerenotserious   enoughtowarrantthekindofburdensthatstateactorstatuswould `  placeoncontractschoolslikeMCI,particularlygiventhe  @ alternativemeansofredressavailable.Iaddressthesepoints.     A.BurdensonContractSchools  `   ` Whendiscussingtheburdensimposedbystateactor @  status,themajorityrecognizestheinterestsofcontractschools   inavoidingthe"rigidities[and]lawsuits"thataccompanystate ` actorstatus.Giventheincreasinglevelsofviolenceplaguing  schoolstoday,Iagreethatwemustrespecttheschool 0 administrators'disciplinaryprerogatives.However,wedonothave  toexemptaschoolsuchasMCIfromallconstitutionalstandardsto P advancethatgoal.Instead,wecanrespectthoseprerogatives 0 withinaconstitutionalframework. p  ` TheSupremeCourthasdonejustthat.Indeed,it% j %j+R"has P  repeatedlyemphasizedtheneedforaffirmingthecomprehensive " authorityoftheStatesandofschoolofficials,consistentwith  !p$ fundamentalconstitutionalsafeguards,toprescribeandcontrol "& conductintheschools."Tinkerv.DesMoinesIndep.Cmty.Sch. @$( Dist.,393U.S.503,507(1969).Theexigenciesoftheeducational % !* processmaytrumpbothFirstAmendmentrights,seeHazelwoodSch. `'", Dist.v.Kuhlmeier,484U.S.260,27374(1988)(permitting (@$. principaltocensorstudentnewspaper),andFourthAmendment *%0 rights,seeBd.ofEduc.v.Earls,122S.Ct.2559,2002WL1378649 ,`'2 (June27,2002)(permittingrandomdrugtestsofstudentswithout  findingofprobablecauseofdrugabuse).Furthermore,afinding @ ofstateactionherewillnotresultinthe"constitutionalization"   ofallcontractschools.Asnoted,theentwinementanalysisis `  highlyfactspecific.Thereareunusualfactsherethatmaynotbe  @ easilyreplicated,includingtheprovisionofalleducational    servicestonearlyallhighschoolstudentsinaschooldistrict.  `   B.AlternativeMeansofRedress     ` SinceMCI'scontractwithMSADNo.53requiredMCIto   assume"allthelegalrequirements"oftheschooldistrict,the ` majoritynotesthatLogiodicecouldsueMCIinstatecourtasa  thirdpartybeneficiaryofthecontract.Ifthemoreserious 0 disciplinaryactionofexpulsionhadbeenimposed,Logiodicewould  stillbeapublicchargeofMSADNo.53,whichwouldbeobligedto P providehimwithaneducation. 0  ` Idonotbelievetheseargumentsadequatelyaddressthis p caseoritsimplications.Asthemajorityobserves,thecontract P  rendersMCI"subjectonlytoanarguableobligationtocomplywith " regulationsgoverningtheschooldistrict."Giventheongoing  !p$ disputebetweenMCIandMSADNo.53overthemeaningofthe "& contract,itsuncertainimportoffersuncertainrelief. @$(  ` Shortofexpulsions,therearemanysanctionsthatcanbe % !* imposedonstudentsinanostensiblyprivateschoolthatwould `'", significantlyaffecttheeducationalexperienceofthestudents (@$. withoutimplicatingthelegalobligationofthestatetoprovide *%0 thestudentswithaneducation.Asthiscaseillustrates,the ,`'2 stakescanbehighforapubliclyfundedstudentinaschoollike  MCIwithdisciplinelessdramaticthanexpulsion. @  C.Seriousness     ` Giventhelengthofaschoolyearorthelengthofahigh   schooleducation,seventeendaysofsuspensionmaynotseemlikea @  bigdeal.Whateverthecompletestoryhere,Logiodiceclearly    askedforsomeofthetroublehegotwithhisinappropriate `  conduct.Butthereinliestheproblem.Beforetherewasany @  evaluationofthecompletestoryatanythingresemblingahearing,   theofficialsatMCIdecidedthatLogiodicecouldnotreturnto ` schoolbeforehereceiveda"safetyevaluation"fromacounselor  certifyingthathewasnotathreattohimselforotherstudents. 0 Thatrequirementhadtheinevitableeffectofprolonginghis  suspensionbeyondthedecreedtendaysandlabelingLogiodiceas P potentiallydangerous.Inimposingthatlabel,MCIimposeda 0 serioussanctiononLogiodicewithpotentialrepercussionsfar p beyondthisincident.AstheSupremeCourthasrecognized,such P  "chargescouldseriouslydamage...students'standingwiththeir " fellowpupilsandtheirteachersaswellasinterferewithlater  !p$ opportunitiesforhighereducationandemployment."Goss,419U.S. "& at575.Logiodicemayhavetoexplainthisdisciplinaryrecord, @$( includingthepsychological"safety"evaluation,ifheapplies_to % !* aninstitutionofhighereducationorevenwhenheappliesfor `'", jobs. (@$.  ` While"thelengthandconsequentseverityofa *%0 deprivation...isnotdecisiveofthebasicrighttoahearing ,`'2 ofsomekind,"theyarefactors"toweighindeterminingthe  appropriateformofhearing."Id.at576(internalquotationmarks @ omitted).Regrettably,theimportantcontestovertheprocedural   protectionstowhich_Logiodice_Ԁwasentitledwillneverbejoinedif `  MCIisnotdeemedastateactor.Inmyview,forallofthe  @ reasonsstated,MCIisastateactorintheeducationofits    publiclyfundedstudentsanditsconductshouldbereevaluatedon `  thatbasis.      V.Conclusion  0  h ` AfterdeterminingthatMCIisnotastateactor,the ` majorityalsoassessestheliabilityof_MSAD_ԀNo.53under1983.  Iwillnotdosohere.Inmyview,adeterminationthatMCIisa 0 stateactorsofundamentallychangestheanalysisof_MSAD_ԀNo.53's  liabilityunder1983thatweshouldremandthecasetothe P districtcourtwithinstructionstoreevaluatetheliabilityof 0 _MSAD_ԀNo.53inlightofMCI'sstatusasastateactor. p  ` Onthebasisofthesummaryjudgmentrecordpresented P  here,Iseenoreasonwhystudentsshouldenjoyconstitutional " protectionswhentheyattendtheWarsawMiddleSchool,butthen  !p$ "shedtheirconstitutionalrights...attheschoolhousegate"of "& MCI,Tinker,393U.S.at506,whenthatgateleadstotheonly @$( publiclyfundedhighschooleducationforstudentsinthedistrict. % !* Entwinementdoctrine,Westv.Atkins,457U.S.42,andtheother `'", considerationscitedabove,allleadtotheconclusionthatMCI's (@$. actionsinthiscasearefairlyattributabletothestate. *%0 Therefore,Irespectfullydissent.# X%XXaX%I#