are private. The thrust of the appellants’ argument is that, since neither Orleans nor Hines controls their case, they are entitled to attempt to show that BWCAA’s discrimination was federal action. They urge this court ,to reverse the district court’s dismissal and remand the case for a trial on the merits. The appellees urge that Orleans and Hines stand for the proposition that community action agencies can never be engaged in federal action. They point out that the Orleans Court cited Hines (425 U.S. at 818 n. 8, 96 S.Ct. at 1978) as support for its holding that such agencies are private, not federal, employers. The appellees view the citation to Hines as evidence that the Court approved the Fifth Circuit’s holding that community action age tal Comm., 397 F.2d 33, 35 (6th Cir. 1968) (<HOLDING>). We quote at some length from the Supreme
holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 holding that the correct approach in a nonfrivolous but unmeritorious  1983 case is to dismiss for failure to state a claim holding that the bell afl corp standard applies to all motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief recognizing such a claim under  1983 holding state is not a proper defendant under  1983