Tawil’s activities, permitting him to abuse his position. He further alleged that only Muslims were forced to worship in a room frequented by homosexuals, and that MPCF Muslims had been improperly subjected to the same constraints on their religious practices as Muslims at higher-security IDOC facilities. He claimed violations of his First Amendment and equal protection rights and breach of contract. After careful de novo review, see Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir.1999), we affirm. Without deciding whether Williams’s claims against Halford were barred by res judicata (based on the final judgment we agree with the District Court that they were not state actors while performing clerical duties. See Montano v. Hedgepeth, 120 F.3d 844, 848 (8th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). Williams was essentially challenging the
holding that first amendment provides no protection against private actions no matter how egregious holding that physician is not required to identify and disclose every chance no matter how remote of the occurrence of every possible birth defect no matter how insignificant holding that an equal protection claim was no more than a first amendment claim dressed in equal protection clothing and was thus subsumed by and coextensive with the first amendment claim holding that no private right of action exists holding that to require proof of prosecutorial bad faith would mean that no matter how egregious the prejudice to a defendant and no matter how long the preindictment delay if a defendant cannot prove improper prosecutorial motive then no due process violation has occurred and that this conclusion on its face would violate fundamental conceptions of justice as well as the communitys sense of fair play