Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed a pro se Virginia inmate’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against his former criminal defense attorney. The court held that private attorneys and public defenders do not act under color of state law when performing traditional defense-counsel functions, and dismissed the action as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
Holdings
- A private attorney or public defender does not act under color of state or federal law when performing traditional defense-counsel functions in criminal proceedings.
- The complaint was subject to dismissal as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Questions Presented
- Whether a § 1983 claim may be maintained against a private attorney or public defender for conduct undertaken while representing a criminal defendant.
- Whether the complaint stated a legally cognizable § 1983 claim under the PLRA screening standards.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (15)
- Clay v. Yates, 809 F. Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Va. 1992)(followed)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)(followed)
- Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 556, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 213 (4th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Iodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 270, 281 (4th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…