Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-01075/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-01075-0/pdf.json

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

---

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint 1

screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires

the 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

DWONE CARNELL HARRISON, *

#193 689 

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:06-CV-1075-MHT

 (WO)

D.WAYNE PERDUE *

Defendant. *

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Dwone Harrison, an inmate incarcerated at the Bibb

County Correctional Facility, complains that his court appointed attorney violated his

constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that counsel rendered ineffective

assistance during his criminal trial proceedings. The named defendant is attorney D. Wayne

Perdue. Plaintiff requests monetary damages. Upon review of the complaint, the court

concludes that dismissal of the complaint prior to service of process is appropriate under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

1

I. DISCUSSION

To obtain relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) a

Case 2:06-cv-01075-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 3
2

deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) a

deprivation of that right by the defendant acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981). Plaintiff's claims against his

defense counsel lack an arguable basis in law. It is well established that neither appointed nor

retained counsel acts under color of state law in representing a defendant in trial proceedings

or on direct appeal. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324 (1981) (public defender

does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as

counsel to a defendant in a criminal case); Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court No. 3, 837 F.2d 677,

678 (5 Cir.1988) (“[P]rivate attorneys, even court-appointed attorneys, are not official state th

actors and . . . are not subject to suit under section 1983.”); Russell v. Millsap, 781 F.2d 381,

383 (5 Cir.1985) (retained counsel does not act under color of state law). Accordingly, th

Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Perdue is due to be dismissed under §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's

complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before January 24, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically

Case 2:06-cv-01075-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 3
3

identify the findingsin the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a 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.

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

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 11 day of January, 2007. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01075-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 3