90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Under the Supreme Court’s “public function” test, a private entity acts under color of state law “when that entity performs a function which is traditionally the exclusive province of the state.” Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir.1989). The Supreme Court has explained that “when private individuals or groups are endowed by the State with powers or functions governmental in nature, they become agencies or instrumentalities of the State and subject to its constitutional limitations.” Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 299, 86 S.Ct. 486, 15 L.Ed.2d 373 (1966). Thus, the Supreme Court has found private actors to be susceptible to suit under § 1983. E.g., West, 487 U.S. at 54-57, 108 S.Ct. 2250 (<HOLDING>). Relevant to this case, the Supreme Court has
holding that private doctor under contract with a state prison to provide medical care to prisoners acted under color of state law when he treated inmate holding that a state is required to provide medical care to incarcerated individuals holding that to prevail on a  1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law in other words that there was state action holding that private attorney who acted as courtappointed counsel for child in state juvenile delinquency proceedings was not acting under color of state law holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability