Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-03081/USCOURTS-ca10-08-03081-0/pdf.json

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

---

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 9, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN VASQUEZ ARROYO,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 08-3081

v. (D. of Kan.)

KOREY A. KAUL,

Respondent-Appellee.

(D.C. No. 08-CV-3057-SAC)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.** 

Martin Vasquez Arroyo appeals the district court’s order dismissing his pro

se civil rights action against his public defender. The public defender was

assigned to defend Arroyo’s pending state appellate case. Arroyo seeks damages

and the removal of his public defender from that case. Because a state-appointed

Appellate Case: 08-3081 Document: 0101654151 Date Filed: 05/09/2008 Page: 1 
-2-

public defender is not a state officer for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we

AFFIRM the lower court’s order. 

I. Background

Arroyo was sentenced in 2005 for various state charges and proceeded on

direct appeal. For his appeal, the state appointed Korey Kaul as his public

defender. Arroyo attempts to sue Kaul under § 1983 for ineffective assistance of

counsel, seeking twenty million dollars from Kaul, fifteen million dollars in

punitive damages, five million dollars in personal damages, and the dismissal of

Kaul as his appointed counsel. The district court dismissed the complaint sua

sponte for failure to state a claim. 

Arroyo now appeals the district court’s order. 

II. Discussion

We review de novo the lower court’s decision to dismiss Arroyo’s

complaint. See Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2006). 

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a district

court may dismiss a prisoner’s civil action sua sponte “for failure to state a claim

if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones

v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 920 (2007). Pro se plaintiff’s pleadings are construed

liberally. Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002). 

Appellate Case: 08-3081 Document: 0101654151 Date Filed: 05/09/2008 Page: 2 
1

 Even if Arroyo’s complaint were construed liberally as a complaint

asserting a malpractice action under state law, the claim would be dismissed. A

state legal malpractice action would not fall under the federal court’s federalquestion jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because both parties are from the

same state, it would not fall under the federal court’s diversity jurisdiction, see 28

U.S.C. § 1332.

-3-

After having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt the reasoning set

forth in the district court’s order. As the district court explained, it is well settled

in this circuit that public defenders cannot be sued under § 1983 because they are

not state officers. See, e.g., Harris v. Champain, 51 F.3d 901, 909 (10th Cir.

1995). Likewise, we agree with the district court that Arroyo cannot seek to have

his state-appointed counsel removed in the state court matter by filing a § 1983

claim in federal court.1

 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, the district court’s order is incorporated by reference and

AFFIRMED. While the district court granted Arroyo in forma pauperis, we

remind him that he is required to continue making partial payments until all fees

have been paid. We also DENY Arroyo’s motion to file a declaration and

memorandum. 

Entered for the Court,

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 08-3081 Document: 0101654151 Date Filed: 05/09/2008 Page: 3