Jorbert Benjamin Polty v. Melisa Goldstein, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Alaska dismisses Jorbert Benjamin Polty’s civil rights action against his appointed defense attorney and the Public Defender Agency. The court holds that defense counsel did not act under color of state law, and that ineffective-assistance, requests for new counsel, and related state-law claims cannot proceed in this action. The dismissal is without leave to amend and counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Holdings

1. Criminal defense attorneys, whether retained or appointed, do not act under color of state law when performing their traditional functions as defense counsel; therefore, Plaintiff's claims against Attorney Goldstein and the Public Defender Agency were not cognizable under § 1983.
2. Claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel or seeking a new defense attorney must be raised in the state criminal case, through state post-conviction relief, or through a federal habeas petition after available state remedies have been exhausted; they cannot be brought in a civil rights action.
3. The intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and legal-malpractice claims could not proceed because there was no cognizable federal claim for supplemental jurisdiction and the complaint did not satisfy diversity jurisdiction.
4. The complaint was dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.
5. The dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims against an appointed criminal defense attorney and the Public Defender Agency are actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when based on counsel's traditional functions as criminal defense counsel.
2. Whether claims for ineffective assistance of counsel or appointment of new counsel may be pursued in a § 1983 civil rights action.
3. Whether the asserted state-law claims could proceed in federal court through supplemental or diversity jurisdiction.
4. Whether the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.
5. Whether the dismissal qualifies as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Disposition

dismissed