Phillip L. Mitchell v. Arthur Cleveland Earls, IV

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee screened a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court held that the criminal defense attorney named as the defendant was not a state actor, whether appointed or retained, and dismissed the official-capacity claims for failure to state a claim. The court also denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal and directed the Clerk to enter judgment.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a claim under § 1983 because it did not plausibly allege that Earls acted under color of state law.
2. Allegations that a criminal defense attorney provided ineffective or defective representation, even when the alleged performance results in the defendant's loss of liberty, do not by themselves establish action under color of state law.
3. The complaint did not plead a plausible and specific factual basis for concluding that Earls acted in concert with state officials or that his conduct was otherwise chargeable to the State.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Mitchell's criminal defense attorney.
2. Whether a public defender or retained criminal defense attorney is a state actor subject to suit under § 1983 based solely on allegedly deficient representation.
3. Whether the complaint alleged facts bringing the attorney within the narrow exception for conduct undertaken jointly with, or significantly aided by, state officials.

Disposition

dismissed