construed the complaint liberally as stating the following claims: (1) a Fourteenth Amendment right to housing claim; (2) a housing discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.; (3) a First Amendment right of association claim; (4) a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process claim; (5) criminal conspiracy; and (6) a Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial claim. Initially, the District Court noted that the complaint could be dismissed with respect to Extended Stay defendants because they were private parties and Coulter had failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate they were acting on behalf of, or in concert with, a state actor. See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 175-76 (3d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the Court concluded that, even
holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under  1983 holding that in order to prevail under  1983 a plaintiff must show 1 that defendants deprived him or her of a right secured by the constitution or laws of the united states and 2 that in doing so defendants acted under color of state law internal quotation marks omitted 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 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 to state  1983 claim against defendant plaintiff must allege that defendant was personally involved in or had direct responsibility for incidents that resulted in injury