Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02110/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02110-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Liane E. Kerr
Appellee
Michael Anthony Samora
Appellant

Document Text:

*

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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 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not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 19, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL ANTHONY SAMORA,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 07-2110

v. (D. New Mexico)

LIANE E. KERR,

Defendant - Appellee.

(D.C. No. CIV-07-200-JB-RHS)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Michael Anthony Samora, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brought claims

under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988, and 2000a-2 in

the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against his former

criminal defense attorney, Liane Kerr. The district court granted Mr. Samora’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and dismissed

Appellate Case: 07-2110 Document: 010195951 Date Filed: 12/19/2007 Page: 1
-2-

his claims sua sponte under § 1915(e)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6).

On appeal Mr. Samora argues only that he was denied his Sixth

Amendment right to a speedy trial. Because he did not allege in his complaint or

argue in his brief that the violation was the product of a conspiracy, see 42 U.S.C.

§ 1985, or of discrimination or segregation, see id. at § 2000a-2, we presume that

he challenges the district court’s decision with respect to his claims against Kerr

under §§ 1343(a)(3) and 1983. See Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224

(10th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e must construe a pro se appellant’s complaint liberally.”).

To state a claim under §§ 1343(a)(3) and 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a

constitutional violation “was committed by a person acting under color of state

law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Private actors ordinarily cannot be

said to act under color of state law. In particular, “[t]he conduct of an attorney

acting in his professional capacity while representing his client does not

constitute action under color of state law . . . .” Beedle v. Wilson, 422 F.3d 1059,

1073 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Samora does not

allege that Kerr committed the violation under color of state law. Thus, the

district court ruled correctly.

Appellate Case: 07-2110 Document: 010195951 Date Filed: 12/19/2007 Page: 2
-3-

We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Samora’s complaint. We

DENY Mr. Samora’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-2110 Document: 010195951 Date Filed: 12/19/2007 Page: 3