Can a prison confidential informant be described as a state actor for retaliation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED State Actor 1. Can a prison confidential informant be described in all fairness as a state actor for retaliation when it resulted from the exercise of a right or privilege having its source in state authority; with "the overt, significant assistance of state officials"; and involves the traditional government function of prison management? Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S. Ct. 2077 (1991); Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 102 S. Ct. 2744 (1982); Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Ath. Ass'n, 531 U.S, 288, 121 S. Ct. 924 (2001). Due Process 2. Should a transcript be provided to an In Forma Pauperis appellant on appeal who has won his case in the district court and raises substantial questions of state action which is a "necessarily fact-bound inquiry" and Rule 50 sufficiency of evidence assignment of errors? Richard v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414 (5th Cir. 1990); Parsell v. United States, 218 F.2d 232 (5th Cir. 1955); Stanley v. Henderson, 590 F.2d 752 (8th Cir, 1979); Thomas v. Computax Corp., 631 F.2d 139 (9th Cir. 1980); Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 102 S. Ct. 2744 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 753(£); Rule 50{a).