Summary
In these findings and recommendations, a magistrate judge recommends dismissing Dwyane Wright’s civil rights action against his former public defender. The court concludes that defense counsel was not a state or federal actor for purposes of claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens, and that any ineffective-assistance claim must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissing the action without leave to amend, while granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint stated a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens against plaintiff's former defense attorney.
- Whether plaintiff's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim could be brought in a civil-rights action or instead had to be raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims after dismissal of all federal claims.
- Whether the complaint's deficiencies could be cured by amendment.
Holdings
- A defense attorney is not a proper defendant under § 1983 or Bivens for acts undertaken while representing a criminal defendant because the attorney is not acting under color of state or federal law.
- An ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim arising from a federal proceeding must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather than as a civil-rights claim.
- When all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims; the court recommended doing so here.
- Leave to amend should be denied when the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment; the court recommended dismissal without leave to amend.
Key quotations
“Defense attorneys generally are not considered state or federal government actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens” (at 2)
“Since plaintiff has not stated a federal claim, I recommend that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice.” (at 3)
Factual background
Wright alleged that after his release from prison he was required to provide a urine sample, which tested positive for marijuana. He was later ordered to appear at a parole-violation hearing with defendant Michael Long, his former criminal attorney, and alleged that Long failed to pursue a religious exemption for marijuana use. Wright asserted federal and state-law claims and sought $2 million in damages.
Procedural history
Wright brought claims styled as ineffective assistance of counsel, entrapment, humiliation, harassment, and cruel and unusual punishment against his former public defender. The court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), recommended dismissal of the federal claims for failure to state a claim, recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, and recommended closing the case. The findings and recommendations were referred to a district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), subject to objections.