IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11483

ROYAL DOUGLAS ROBINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

AUGUSTUS CORBETT; STANLEY R. MAYS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CV-2931

Before CLEMENT, OWEN, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Royal Douglas Robinson, Texas prisoner # 2066342, has filed a motion 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in 

which he alleged that his state-appointed defense attorneys violated his 

constitutional rights during his trial. The district court denied Robinson’s IFP 

motion and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11483 Document: 00514607785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2018
No. 17-11483

2

for IFP status, Robinson is challenging the district court’s certification. See 

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Robinson argues that the district court erred in recommending that his 

complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim because his state-appointed 

attorneys were not state actors who could be sued under § 1983. He contends 

that state-appointed defense attorneys should be considered state actors who 

fulfill the State’s duty to provide representation to indigent defendants, just as 

prison doctors are considered state actors fulfilling the State’s duty to provide 

medical care to prisoners.

Court-appointed lawyers are not state actors for § 1983 purposes when 

they are performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel in a criminal 

proceeding. Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1981); Mills v. 

Criminal Dist. Court No. 3, 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988). Robinson’s claim 

that his defense attorneys violated his constitutional rights during voir dire 

and the opening statement concerns actions that fall within the traditional 

tasks performed by counsel in defending a client. See Dodson, 454 U.S. at 317-

18. 

Robinson has not shown that he will raise a legal point on appeal that is 

arguable on its merits. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the 

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. His motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED. 

The district court’s dismissal of Robinson’s § 1983 complaint as frivolous 

counts as a strike under § 1915(g), as does the dismissal of this appeal as 

frivolous. See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761-64 (2015). Robinson 

is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to 

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or 

 Case: 17-11483 Document: 00514607785 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2018
No. 17-11483

3

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury. See § 1915(g).

 Case: 17-11483 Document: 00514607785 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/20/2018