two prisoners died after being left in an oppressively hot isolation cell for almost fifteen hours. Id. at 1209. We relied on state law to identify the actors responsible for ensuring that the prison did not employ this illegal form of punishment. State law placed an affirmative duty on certain prison officials to inspect the prison facilities. Id. at 1213. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of these defendants, and remanded for the district court to determine their liability. Id. at 1214. See also Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 757, 760 n. 7 (5th Cir.1977) (“when a state official’s violation of state law causes [a constitutional violation], a federal cause of action arises under § 1983”) (citation omitted); Sims v. Adams, 537 F.2d 829, 831-32 (5th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). I would first look to state law to determine
holding that cause of action exists under section 1983 where mayor and police chief may have had obligation under state law to supervise policeman with alleged history of racial violence holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 recognizing a cause of action under  1983 based upon the discriminatory denial of police services holding the chief of police was an atwill employee because the parties agreed that the chief of police was an appointed officer and the citys charter stated that officers shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor with consent of the council holding state is not a proper defendant under  1983