Case ID: f-appx_424/html/0080-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Fremonde XENOS, Appellant v. Nuria SLOJUND.
    No. 10-4406.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Feb. 28, 2011.
    April 18, 2011.
    Jose Fremonde Xenos, Allentown, PA, pro se.
    Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant, Jose Fremonde Xenos, filed the underlying action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Nuria Slojund, Esq., his court-appointed appellate attorney. Xenos complained about Slojund’s actions during the course of his appeal from a state criminal proceeding which apparently ended adversely to him. The District Court dismissed Xenos’ complaint sua sponte for lack of legal merit in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). For the reasons provided by the District Court, we agree and will affirm.

As the District Court explained, a defense attorney “does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel in a criminal proceeding.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). Because the complaint contains no allegations to suggest that Slojund is a state actor properly sued under § 1983, we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing Xenos’ complaint. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court as no substantial question is presented by this appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. 
      
      . Any attack on the criminal proceeding itself or the sentence ultimately imposed falls within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not an action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.