2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-26-2007 

# Albrecht v . H ami lt on P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4313

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Albr e cht v . H ami lt on" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1200. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1200CL D- 1 9 5 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 4313

________________ J ERA LD D . ALB RECH T, A p p e llan t, v. D A V I D H A M I LTO N ; V ER N O N CL A SH

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . N . J . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 00066) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M aryL . C ooper

_______________________________________ S u b m itt e d F o r P o ss ib le D ism iss a l U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ) o r P o ss ib le Sum m aryA ct i on U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6 A pr i l 12, 2007 Be f o r e : REN DELL, SM I TH A ND J OR DA N, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 26, 2007)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM J er al d A l br echt , a N ew J er s eys t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i efA c c o r d i n g t o A l b r e c h t , o n D e c e m b e r3 , 2 0 0 4 , th e S u p e r i o rC o u r to f N e w J e r s e y, 1 A ppel l at e D i vi s i on hel d t hatA l br echtw as deni ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el dur i ng th e P C R p ro c e e d in g s, a n d re m a n d e d h is c a se to th e trial c o u rt. A lb re c h t d o e s n o t in d ica te th e c u rr e n t s ta tu s o f

h is p e titio n f

o r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f.

2 m a yb e g ra n ted , se e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(ii), an d th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to re c o n sid e r its d ism iss a l o rd e r. F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth b e lo w , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r. S e e I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . A lb re c h t is, an d a t all re lev a n t ti m e s w a s, in c a rc e ra ted a t th e N e w Je rse yS tate P riso n in T re n to n , N e w Je rse y . In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 6 , A lb re c h t f iled a c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 in th e D istric t C o u rt a g a in st D a v id H a m ilt o n , a N e w Je rse yp u b lic defe nderappoi nt ed t o r epr es enthi m i n pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs , and V ernon C l as h, the C hi ef D eputyPubl i c D efe nderatthatt i m e. I n the compl ai nt , A l br echtal l eged that H ami l t on and C l as h cons pi r ed t o w i thdr aw hi s appl i cat i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef ( “PC R ”) i n r et al i at i on forA l br echt ’ s havi ng fi l ed a gr i evanc e aga i ns tH ami l t on w i th t he O f f ice o f A tto rn e yE th ics . S p e c if ica lly , A lb re c h t cla im e d th a t H a m ilt o n re f u se d to i n v e s t i g a t e h i s c l a i ms o ri n t e r v i e w wi tn e s s e s f o rth e e v i d e n t i a ryh e a r i n g o n h i s P CR p e tit io n , fa iled to f

ile a b rie f

in su p p o rt o f

th e p e tit io n , an d ig n o re d h is p h o n e c a lls. W ith re sp e c t to d e f

e n d a n t C las h , A lb re c h t alle g e d th a t ev e n th o u g h C las h w a s n e v e r f o rm a lly a p p o in ted a s h is c o u n se l, C las h ste p p e d in to w ith d ra w h is P C R p e tit io n f ro m th e sta te courtw i thoutA l br echt ’ s cons entorknow l edge. 1 O n J anuary27, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our t , carry i ng outi t s obl i gat i on t o s cr eenIn th e c o m p la in t, A lb re c h t a ls o a s s e rt e d s e v e ra l c la im s u n d e r N e w J e rs e yla w . 2 S p e c if ica lly , A lb re c h t alle g e d th a t d e f e n d a n ts v io late d th e N e w Je rse yC iv il R ig h ts A c t, thattheycomm i t t ed l egal m al pr act i ce, and thattheyar e l i abl e fori nt ent i onal and negl i genti nfl i ct i on of extr eme em ot i onal di s tr es s . I n i t s J anuary27, 2006 or der , the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thatA l br echt ’ s compl ai ntm ayal l ege f act s s uffi ci entt o s t at e a l egal m al pr act i ce c l ai m underN ew J er s eyl aw . H ow ever , i n l i ghtof the C our t ’ s di s m i s s al of A l br echt ’ s fede r al cl ai m s , the C our tperm i s s i bl ydecl i ned t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overt he s t at e l aw cl ai m s , s ee 28 U . S. C . § 1367( c) ( 3) , and di s m i s s ed thos e cl ai m s w i thout p re ju d ic e to A lb re c h t’ s ri g h t to b ri n g th e m in s ta te c o u rt . 3 A lbrec h t’ s co m p lai n t un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 A , en tered an o rde r dism issi n g A lbrec h t’ s act i on under§ 1983 forfai l ur e t o s t at e cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. See 28 2 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(e) (2) (B )( i i ). S pecifi cal l y , the D i stri ctC ou rtheld that H am i l t on and C l ash w er e not“s t at e ac t or s ” w i thi n t he meani ng of Sect i on 1983. See Pol k C ountyv. D ods on, 454 U . S. 312, 318 ( 1981) ( hol di ng thata publ i c def enderper form i ng the tr adi t i onal f u n c tio n s o f

c o u n s e l to a c ri m in a l d e f e n d a n t is n o t a s ta te a c to r f o r § 1 9 8 3 p u rp o s e s ). T h ere af ter, A lbrec h t fi led a ti m elym o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n , w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed on Sept ember18, 2006. A l br echtthen fi l ed a not i ce of appea l w i th the D i s tr i ct C o u rt s e e k in g to a p p e a l th e C o u rt ’s J a n u a ry 2 7 a n d O c to b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 o rd e rs . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. See Tours cher v. M cC ul l ough, 184 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . A ft era ca r eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, we c o n c l u d e th a tth e a p p e a l p r e s e n t s “ n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n ” u n d e rT h i r d Ci r c u i tL AR 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6 and w i l l , ther efor e, s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ' s or der d ism iss in g A lb re c h t’s c o m p lain t. W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatA l br echtfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m under424

U . S . C . § 1 98 3. In order t o est abli sh a viol at i on of 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, a plai nti ff “m ust d e m o n stra te th a t th e c o n d u c t co m p lain e d o f w a s c o m m itt e d b ya p e rso n a c tin g u n d e r sta te l aw and thatthe conduc tdepr i ved hi m of r i ght s , pr i vi l eges ori m m uni t i es s ecur ed byt he C ons t i tut i on. ” Pi eckni ck v. Penns y l vani a, 36 F. 3d 1250, 1255- 56 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “The depr i vat i on m us tbe ca us ed bythe exe r ci s e of s om e r i ghtor p riv ileg e c re a ted b yth e S tate . . . o r b ya p e rso n w h o m a yf a irlyb e sa id to b e a sta te act or . ” Lugarv. E dm ons on O i l C o. , 487 U . S. 42, 49 ( 1988) . T hi s r equi r ementm eans thatthe def

endantm us thave e xer ci s ed pow er“pos s es s ed byvi r tue of s t at e l aw and made pos s i bl e onl ybeca us e the w r ongdoeri s cl othed w i th author i tyof s t at e l aw . ” W es tv. A tk in s, 4 8 7 U .S . 4 2 , 4 9 (1 9 8 8 ) (q u o tin g U .S . v . C las sic , 3 1 3 U .S . 2 9 9 (1 9 4 1 )). It is w e ll es t abl i s hed thata def

ens e att orney , w hetherpr i vat el yr et ai ned, court - appoi nt ed, or empl oy ed as a publ i c def ender , does notactundercol orof s t at e l aw forpurpos es of s ect i on 1983 w hen per form i ng a l aw y er ’ s tr adi t i onal funct i ons as couns el t o a def endant i n a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng. Pol k C ounty , 454 U . S. at318; A ngel i co v. L ehi gh V al l ey H o s p ., In c ., 1 8 4 F .3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). I n a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, A l br echtar gued thathi s al l egat i ons es t abl i s h a cl ai m underthe “a dm i ni s tr at i ve ac t i on” exc ept i on i dent i fi ed i n Pol k C ounty . See i d. at 3 2 5 (“ It m a yb e . . . tha t a p u b lic d e f e n d e r a lso w o u ld a c t u n d e r c o lo r o f sta te la w w h ile per form i ng cert ai n admi ni s tr at i ve and pos s i bl yi nves t i gat i ve func t i ons ”) ; s ee a l s o M i r anda v . C lar k C o u n ty , N e v a d a , 3 1 9 F .3 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 9 (9 C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t a p u b lic th5

defe nderact s undercol orof s t at e l aw w hen he pe r form s admi ni s tr at i ve func t i ons s uch as all o ca ti n g reso u rce s an d d eterm ining d ep artm en t po li cies). C o n tr aryto A lbrec h t’ s cont ent i on, how ever , the al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntpert ai n s ol el yt o defe ndant s ’ act i ons as l i t i gat or s i n a part i cul arcas e, and do notr el at e t o thei rr ol es as admi ni s tr at or s of a governm entoffi ce. T her efor e, the “a dm i ni s tr at i ve ac t i on” exc ept i on t o Pol k does not a p p ly to th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ c o n d u c t h e re . A l br echtal s o ar gued i n hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on thathi s compl ai nt e sta b lish e s a c laim u n d e r a se c o n d “ e x c e p tio n ” to P o lk C o u n tyw h ich a llo w s a p u b lic defe ndert o be s ued unders ect i on 1983 i f he c ons pi r es w i th a s t at e ac t ors uch as a j udge ora s t at e pr os ecut or . See Tow erv. G l over , 467 U . S. 914, 916 ( 1984) ( hol di ng that al tho ug h ap po i nted cou nsel do es not act“un der col or of st at e l aw ” i n the norm al cou rs e of conduc t i ng a def

ens e, couns el does act“undercol orof s t at e l aw ” w i thi n the meani ng of s ect i on 1983 w hen enga ged i n cons pi r acyw i th s t at e off i ci al s t o depr i ve the def endant of fe der al r i ght s ) . A ccor di ng t o A l br echt , he s t at ed a pr opercl ai m pur s uantt o T ow er w h en h e a ll eg ed in the co m p lai n t th at H am il ton an d C lash co n sp ir ed w ith the s tat e’s pr os ecut ort o depr i ve hi m of hi s r i ghtt o acc es s the s t at e court s t o s eek pos t - convi ct i on re lie f. T he compl ai nt , how ever , does nots uffi ci ent l yal l ege a cons pi r acycl ai m . Pur s uant to F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re 8 (a ), a c o m p lain t m u st in c lu d e “ ‘a sh o rt a n d p lain stat em en t of

the c lai m ’ th at w il l give the d ef en d an t fair no ti ce o f w h at th e p lai n ti ff ’sA l br echtal s o ar gues i n hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on that , t o the ext entthathe fa i l ed 3 t o pl ead hi s cons pi r acycl ai m w i th s uffi ci entpart i cul ar i ty , the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have gi ven hi m an opportuni tyt o amend t he compl ai ntbefor e di s m i s s i ng i t . W e fi nd no err or b e c a u s e a n ya m e n d m e n t w o u ld h a v e b e e n f u tile . S e e G ra y s o n v . M a yv ie w S ta te H o s p ., 293 F. 3d 103, 108 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . N ot abl y , A l br echt ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on c o n ta in e d n o a lle g a tio n s th a t w o u ld b e s u f f ic ie n t to s ta te a c la im . 6 cl ai m i s and the gr ounds upon w hi ch i tr es t s . ” Leatherm an v. T arr antC ountyN ar cot i cs I nt el l i gence and C oor di nat i on U ni t , 507 U . S. 163, 168 ( 1993) ( quot i ng C onl eyv. G i bs on, 355 U . S. 41, 47 ( 1957) ) . T hus , a “pl ai nt i ff s houl d pl ead ba s i c fa ct s , s uch as theyar e, for thos e ar e ‘ the gr ounds ’ upon w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m r es t s . ” I n r e Tow erA i r , I nc. , 416 F .3 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A lb re c h t, ho w e v e r, f a ils to p lea d e v e n “ b a sic f a c ts” in s u p p o rt o f

h is a lle g a tio n th a t th e p ro s e c u to r w o rk e d “ in c o llu s io n ” w ith th e d e f e n d a n ts . A l br echtdoes nots ugges tthatthe pr os ecut orent er ed i nt o an agr eementw i th the def ens e, nordoes he al l ege a nyfac t s fr om w hi ch w e ca n i nferthatthe pr os ecut i on s har ed the defe ndant s ’ m ot i vat i on t o depr i ve hi m of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . R ather , the compl ai nt cont ai ns onl ya gene r al averm entof cons pi r acyamount i ng t o nothi ng m or e than a concl us i on of l aw . T he pr os ecut i on’ s part i ci pat i on i n the ca s e does notbyi t s el f, of cour s e, s uppor tthe exi s t ence of anycons pi r acy . T hus , the compl ai ntcl ear l yfai l s t o gi ve th e d e f e n d a n ts “ f

a ir n o tice o f

w h a t th e p lain tiff ’s c laim is a n d th e g ro u n d s u p o n w h ich it r es t s . ” A ccor di ngl y , A l br echt ’ s compl ai ntfai l s t o s uffi ci ent l yal l ege thatH ami l t on and C lash co n sp ir ed w ith a state a ctor so as to stat e a claim u n d er T o w er. 3 F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t A lb re c h t f a iled tos t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. A ccor di ngl y , as ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al

ques t i on pr es ent ed bythi s appea l , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m . See Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .