Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01056/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01056-0/pdf.json

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

---

., 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DONZELL O. ROSENBERG, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United States Courr of Appeals •r . ~nt he·,l!'Cll.!t · · 

JUN 18 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

VIRGINIA LOU GRADY; DAVID F. 

VELA; OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC 

DEFENDER; and STATE OF COLORADO, 

No. 90-1056 

(D.C. No. 89-Z-2099) 

(D. Colo.) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff appeals from the district court's dismissal, with 

prejudice, of plaintiff's civil rights action against the State 

Deputy Public Defender, the State Public Defender, the Office of 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1056 Document: 010110036836 Date Filed: 06/18/1990 Page: 1 
the State Public Defender, and the State of Colorado. We affirm 

the dismissal. 

Plaintiff does not contest, in his brief on appeal, the trial 

court's order of dismissal of his civil rights action based on 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court adopted the magistrate's recommendation that the case be dismissed since none of the defendants 

were proper parties to a section 1983 action. The Deputy Public 

Defender and the State Public Defender were not acting under color 

of state law and, therefore, were not subject to a section 1983 

claim. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). The 

State Public Defender is not subject to a civil rights claim under 

a theory of respondeat superior. See Pembauer v. City of 

Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479 (1986); McKee v. Heggy, 703 F.2d 

479, 483 (10th Cir. 1983). Finally, the State of Colorado and the 

Office of the State Public Defender, as a state agency, are immune 

from a civil rights complaint by virtue of the eleventh amendment 

to the United States Constitution. Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 

1512, 1524-25 (10th Cir. 1988); Griess v. Colorado, 841 F.2d 1042, 

1044 (10th Cir. 1988). 

To circumvent the district court's correct legal analysis and 

dismissal of the claim, plaintiff for the first time on appeal 

seeks to stylize his complaint as a claim for legal malpractice. 

We find no such claim in the complaint filed in the district 

court. Plaintiff's complaint was very clearly denominated a claim 

for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of civil 

rights. Thus, the pleadings are not sufficient to raise a legal 

malpractice claim. The issue simply was not raised in the trial 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1056 Document: 010110036836 Date Filed: 06/18/1990 Page: 2 
court. We also note that even if legal malpractice had been pled, 

the trial court would have lacked jurisdiction because there was 

no diversity of citizenship and no claim of pendent jurisdiction 

was made. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not commit 

reversible error by dismissing plaintiff's federal civil rights 

claim with prejudice. The issue of legal malpractice was simply 

not before the district court. Thus, we do not address it. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

~onroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1056 Document: 010110036836 Date Filed: 06/18/1990 Page: 3