case does not stand for the proposition that private prison employees never act under color of federal or state law. See id. Indeed, the Court in Richardson expressly noted that it did “not address[ ] whether the defendants are liable under § 1983 even though they are employed by a private firm.” 521 U.S. at 413, 117 S.Ct. 2100. Rather, the Court there addressed only the question of whether private prison guards at state prisons are entitled to qualified immunity when sued for constitutional violations, not whether those guards acted under color of federal or state law. See id. As other cases confirm, the immunity question is fundamentally distinct from the governmental action question we encounter here. See Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 168-69, 112 S.Ct. 1827, 118 L.Ed.2d 504 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Jensen v. Lane County, 222 F.3d 570, 580 (9th
holding that defendants claiming qualified immunity to  1983 action were entitled to summary judgment where factual disputes were not material holding that a private physician contracting with a county psychiatric hospital was liable as a state actor but was not entitled to qualified immunity holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern holding that private defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity but remanding for a determination of whether they were liable as government actors holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity