Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-00814/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-00814-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

The court granted Balcom leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this cause of action. Court Doc. No. 3.

1

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis will have his complaint screened under the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which requires this court to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action prior to service of process if it

determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD DEVONE BALCOM, #158439, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-814-TMH

) [WO]

)

JACK BLUMENFELD, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Ronald Devone Balcom [“Balcom”], a state inmate,

complains that his attorneys provided ineffective assistance during proceedings related to

sentences imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama. 

Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of this case prior

to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

1

 DISCUSSION

Balcom asserts that Jack Blumenfeld and Mark Johnson, attorneys who represented

him in criminal proceedings before the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama,

deprived him of effective assistance in violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s

Complaint - Court Doc. No. 1 at 2-3. Balcom asserts defendant Johnson provided

Case 1:09-cv-00814-TMH-WC Document 4 Filed 09/01/09 Page 1 of 4
2

erroneous advice during a proceeding on August 11, 2008 addressing the status of his

probation and split sentence. Id. at 3. Balcom further complains neither attorney acted on

his behalf at the aforementioned proceeding which resulted in the revocation of his

“suspended sentence probation and split sentence....” Id. In addition, Balcom alleges

“[n]either attorney filed an appeal and Mark Johnson mislead (sic) [him] so that appeal

deadline had expired.” Id. These claims entitle Balcom to no relief in this cause of action.

An essential element of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is that a person acting under color

of state law committed the asserted constitutional deprivation. American Manufacturers

Mutual Ins. Company v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 119 S.Ct. 977, 985, 143 L.Ed.2d 130

(1999); Willis v. University Health Services, Inc., 993 F.2d 837, 840 (11 Cir. 1993). th

 To state a [viable] claim for relief in an action brought under § 1983, [a

plaintiff] must establish that [he was] deprived of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation

was committed under color of state law.... [T]he under-color-of-state-law

element of § 1983 excludes from its reach “‘merely private conduct, no

matter how discriminatory or wrongful,’” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991,

1002, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer,

334 U.S. 1, 13, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948)).... [Consequently,] state

action requires both an alleged constitutional deprivation “caused by the

exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of

conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is

responsible,” and that “the party charged with the deprivation must be a

person who may fairly be said to be a state actor.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil

Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982); see Flagg

Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185

(1978).” 

American Manufacturers, 526 U.S. at 49-50, 119 S.Ct. at 985 (footnote omitted) (emphasis

in original). 

Case 1:09-cv-00814-TMH-WC Document 4 Filed 09/01/09 Page 2 of 4
 Although Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to § 1915(e)(2), the 2

analysis contained therein remains applicable to the directives contained in the present statute.

3

The law is well settled that an attorney who represents an accused in criminal

proceedings does not act under color of state law. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312

(1981); Mills v. Criminal District Court No. 3, 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5 Cir. 1988) (“[P]rivate th

attorneys, even court-appointed attorneys, are not official state actors and ... are not subject

to suit under section 1983.”). Since the conduct about which Balcom complains was not

committed by a person acting under color of state law, the § 1983 claims asserted against

Jack Blumenfeld and Mark Johnson are frivolous as these claims lack an arguable basis in

law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The instant case is therefore due to 2

be summarily dismissed in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

 CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It is further 

ORDERED that on or before September 14 , 2009 the parties may file objections th

to this Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Case 1:09-cv-00814-TMH-WC Document 4 Filed 09/01/09 Page 3 of 4
4

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981,

en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit 

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 1 day of September, 2009. st

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00814-TMH-WC Document 4 Filed 09/01/09 Page 4 of 4