Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05228/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05228-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ROBERT STEVEN MIX PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5228

BENTON COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S 

OFFICE; JAY SAXTON, Chief Public Defender;

and JEANETTE MCKINNEY, Public Defender DEFENDANTS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Robert Mix, filed this civil rights action on December 6, 2006. He proceeds pro

se and in forma pauperis. The complaint is before the undersigned for a determination of

whether it should be served on the defendants. 

BACKGROUND

Mix contends his constitutional rights were violated by Jay Saxton and Jeanette

McKinney of the Benton County Public Defender’s Office. He alleges that McKinney has

“badgered” him with her “thoughts and opinions” concerning his guilt. Mix states that she has

failed to fight for his innocence and exhibits behaviors that bias his case. 

Mix alleges he is currently being held in the Benton County Jail. He seeks to have

McKinney terminated and requests compensation for his mental anguish and depression resulting

from McKinney’s alleged ineffective representation. 

DISCUSSION

Mix’s claims against Saxton, McKinney, and the Benton County Public Defender’s

Office are subject to dismissal. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege

the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and must show

Case 5:06-cv-05228-JLH Document 5 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

It should be noted, however, that plaintiff may be able to seek relief under state tort 1

law or federal habeas corpus proceedings. 

2

that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Parratt

v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1913, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1981) (overruled on other

grounds). Generally, a public employee acts under color of state law while acting in his [or her]

official capacity or while exercising his [or her] responsibilities pursuant to state law. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2255-56, 101 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1988) (citations omitted).

However, in Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L. Ed. 2d 509 (1981),

the United States Supreme Court held that a public defender does not act under color of state law

for purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to

a defendant in a criminal proceeding. Therefore, because plaintiff’s complaint against Saxton,

McKinney, and the Benton County Public Defender’s Office is based on their performance of

duties as public defenders, Mix’s complaint must be dismissed.1

CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend Mix’s case be dismissed on the grounds the claims are not

cognizable under § 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii)(IFP action, or any portion thereof,

may be dismissed on such grounds at any time). 

Mix has ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which to file

written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections

may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Mix is reminded that

objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.

Case 5:06-cv-05228-JLH Document 5 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

DATED this 08th day of January 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05228-JLH Document 5 Filed 01/08/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>