Philadelphia, supra, 454 F. Supp. at 674. However, the fact that the commissioner had knowledge of unlawful conduct by some officers on prior occasions is not a sufficient ground for imposing liability on the police commissioner in every subsequent case where some other police officer violates the Constitution. Hassell's argument implausibly suggests that when prior unrelated accusations of police misconduct have been brought to the commissioner's attention, he must necessarily have adopted a policy condoning misconduct by police officers generally, otherwise misconduct would not have occurred again. I hold as a matter of law that such "constructive" notice about sporadic acts of police misconduct does not give rise to liability on the part of the commissioner for every instance of police misconduct, in the absence of evidence of prior misconduct by the specific officers involved. Such constructive notice or knowledge does not by itself support the allegation that police officials had a policy of encouraging the violation of civil rights.
There is even less basis for holding the Fire Commissioner and Commissioner of Licenses and Inspections liable on the basis of Hassell's allegations, inasmuch as they have no responsibility for supervision of the conduct of police officers. Hassell's theory of liability would prohibit these two departments from seeking the assistance of the police in executing warrants simply because of the possibility of police misconduct. Plainly, unless the commissioners have specific information that a violation of civil rights is likely to occur, there is no basis for imposing liability on them for seeking the aid of the police in discharging their duties.
C. Liability of Defendants Jadczak and Gallagher
Defendants Jadczak and Gallagher move to dismiss on the ground that as private citizens they were not acting under color of law in their dealings with Hassell, and therefore cannot be liable under § 1983. As a general matter § 1983 does not extend to the actions of private individuals, and there must be action by the state itself or state officials to bring its provisions to bear. See Gibbs v. Titelman, 502 F.2d 1107 (3d Cir. 1974). However, a private individual "acting in concert with public officials" is subject to liability under § 1983. Jennings v. Shuman, 567 F.2d 1213, 1220 (3d Cir. 1977). The test for determining whether a private individual acted in concert with state officials is whether the individual was "a willful participant in joint activities with the State," Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 1605, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970), or whether "the private individual and the public official acted with a common understanding or "meeting of the minds' to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutionally protected rights." Augenti v. Cappellini, 84 F.R.D. 73, 77 (M.D.Pa.1979).
In the instant case, of the numerous allegations which Hassell makes against Jadczak and Gallagher, the only allegations conceivably involving the state are that they filed complaints against Hassell with various government agencies. To impose liability upon defendants under § 1983, Hassell must establish that they were directly involved in the official activities which resulted in the deprivation of his rights. For instance, in Jennings v. Shuman, supra, the defendant was a private citizen who conspired with law enforcement officials to bring false criminal charges against a personal enemy. 567 F.2d at 1216. Similarly, in Augenti v. Cappellini, supra, the defendants were charged with acting in concert with a police officer in wrongfully detaining a member of a religious cult whom they wished to persuade to renounce his beliefs. 84 F.R.D. at 76. Here, there is no allegation that the private individuals were directly involved in the police search of Hassell's home, or actively sought to have the police violate Hassell's rights. The complaint simply states that they complained to government agencies about conditions at Hassell's property, and under Jennings they cannot be held liable for official misconduct which may have ensued pursuant to their complaint unless they were directly involved in, or actively encouraged, such misconduct.
Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim will be granted.