Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05104/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05104-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benton County Public Defender's Office
Defendant
David Lee Daniels
Plaintiff
Brook Lockhart
Defendant
Jay Saxton
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

DAVID LEE DANIELS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5104

JAY SAXTON, Chief Public Defender;

BROOK LOCKHART, Public Defender;

and the BENTON COUNTY PUBLIC

DEFENDER'S OFFICE DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

David Lee Daniels brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff

has applied for pauper status, (Docs. 2, 3), subject to a later determination of service. It is now

determined whether the complaint should be served on the defendant. 

I. Background

In his complaint, Daniels states that Jay Saxton and Brook Lockhart, both public

defenders, have not performed their functions as he believes that should have. Daniels states that

Saxton and Lockhart have committed "improper and malicious counseling" in that they "chased

my witness Andrea Sharp out of the courtroom so she couldn't testify for my bond hearing."

Also, Daniels claims that the defendants never showed him the evidence pertaining to his charges

of rape and theft of property. Plaintiff alleges the public defenders have harmed other criminal

defendants in that the public defenders have (1) failed to bring to a judge's attention violations

of the criminal defendants' rights, (2) told the prosecutor facts that could harm the criminal

defendants' cases, (3) failed to file proper motions in the courts, (4) held back information that

Case 5:06-cv-05104-JLH Document 7 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

could have helped the criminal defendants, and (5) were rude, prejudicial, aggravating, and lied

to the criminal defendants, especially more so to minorities. (Doc. 1. ) 

II. Discussion

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law,

of a citizen's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the

United States. "To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [a plaintiff] must show [1] a

deprivation [under color of law] of [2] a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the

Constitution or the laws of the United States." Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.

1999). "[T]o establish a violation of constitutional rights under § 1983, the plaintiff must prove

that the defendant’s unconstitutional action was the 'cause in fact' of the plaintiff’s injury."

Butler v. Dowd, 979 F.2d 661, 669 (8th Cir. 1992).

Daniels names as the only defendants in this action public defenders Jay Saxton and

Brook Lockhart and the Benton County Public Defender's Office. He claims that Saxton and

Brook acted improperly in representing him at his bond hearing and in other capacities as his

counsel. A 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 proceeding," see Polk County v.

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S. Ct. 445, 70 L. Ed. 2d 509 (1981). Thus none of the

defendants are subject to suit under section 1983, and thus this complaint must be dismissed. 

III. Conclusion

Therefore, I recommend dismissal of plaintiff's complaint as frivolous and for failing to

state a claim. See 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). 

Case 5:06-cv-05104-JLH Document 7 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

Daniels 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 written

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Daniels is reminded

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

court. 

DATED this 27th day of July 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones

_________________________________________

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05104-JLH Document 7 Filed 07/27/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>