Hanas v. Inner City Christian Outreach, Inc., 542 F.Supp.2d 683, 701 (E.D. Mich. 2008)). See also Veeder v. TRI-CAP, No. 17-cv-011690, 2020 WL 1867212, at *12 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2020) (“a probation officer may not abuse his or her discretion by requiring a defendant on supervised release to participate in a faith-based substance abuse treatment program which is inappropriate given the defendant's religious beliefs.”).
Cf. Wolotsky v. Huhn, 960 F.2d 1331, 1335-36 (6th Cir. 1992); Veeder v. TRI-CAP, No. 17-CV-11690, 2020 WL 1867212, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 967481 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2020)
(“Based on the allegations of the Complaint, it appears that these Defendants-a privately run halfway house, its owner, and its employees-are not subject to liability under § 1983.”); Veeder v. TRI-CAP, 2020 WL 1867212, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 967481 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2020) (“‘[C]ourts have consistently held that drug treatment facilities that treat individuals pursuant to a condition of parole are not performing a public function.'”)
See Daniels v. Nw. Hum. Servs, No. 20-1736, 2021 WL 4166285, at *2 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2021) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of lawsuit against residential rehabilitation center and its employees where plaintiff alleged that individuals from state jails were sent to such residential treatment centers); Smith v. Alternative Counseling Servs., Civ. A. No. 21-0076, 2021 WL 492513, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2021) (“a privately run halfway house, its owners, and its employees - are not subject to liability under § 1983.”); Veeder v. TRI-CAP, Civ. A. No. 17-11690, 2020 WL 1867212, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 967481 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2020) (“ ‘drug treatment facilities that treat individuals pursuant to a condition of parole are not performing a public function.' ”) (quoting Porter v. Game, Civ. A. No. 19-1408, 2020 WL 127580, at *2 (E.D. N.Y. Jan. 9, 2020)).
Another district court within the Sixth Circuit has canvassed the law in this area and determined that, under all three state-action tests, courts ordinarily “find that private non-profit entities providing services to parolees and probationers are not state actors.” Veeder v. TRI-CAP, No. 17-CV-11690, 2020 WL 1867212, at *5-9 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:17-CV-11690, 2020 WL 967481 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2020). That is because “courts have consistently held that drug treatment facilities that treat individuals pursuant to a condition of parole are not performing a public function.”
; Veeder v. TRI-CAP, Civ. A. No. 17-11690, 2020 WL 1867212, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 967481 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2020) (“‘[C]ourts have consistently held that drug treatment facilities that treat individuals pursuant to a condition of parole are not performing a public function.'”)
; Veeder v. TRI-CAP, Civ. A. No. 17-11690, 2020 WL 1867212, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 967481 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2020) (“‘[C]ourts have consistently held that drug treatment facilities that treat individuals pursuant to a condition of parole are not performing a public function.'”)
Even in circumstances where "private non-profit entities [are] providing services to parolees and probationers[,]" federal district courts regularly find that such entities are not considered state actors under the relevant legal tests examining the issue of state action. See, e.g., Veeder v. TRI-CAP, Civ. A. No. 17-11690, 2020 WL 1867212, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 967481 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2020) (citing Porter v. Game, Civ. A. No. 19-1408, 2020 WL 127580, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2020) ("'[C]ourts have consistently held that drug treatment facilities that treat individuals pursuant to a condition of parole are not performing a public function.'") (citation omitted); see also Vaughn v. Phoenix House Programs of N.Y., Civ. A. No. 14-3918, 2015 WL 5671902 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2015) (collecting cases and finding no state action when the plaintiff agreed to enter the in-patient treatment program as an alternative to incarceration because the state did not direct his treatment, the program was not a public function, and the program had no role in the criminal proceedings). In light of the holdings of other district courts on this issue and the circumstances of this case - where (1) Smith has not pled any connection between the state and the Defendants; and (2) it appears that Smith was at ACA halfway house