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 8-28-2007 

# O jse rk i s v . Apri le 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 . 07-1727

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 " O js e rki s v . Apri le " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 528. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/528A M E N D E D C L D - 308 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 . 07- 1727

________________ M A U RI CE J . O J SER K I S, A ppel l ant v. DOM I NI C J . APR I LE ; BATHGATE WEGENE R & W OLF ; LAWRENCE E. BA TH G A TE; PETE R H . W EG EN ER ; W I LLI A M J . W O LFE; D O RO TH Y F. M CC RO S S ON; T AHT , S T ANT ON & M CC RO S S ON, P . C. ; DANI E L J . YOUNG

____________________________________ 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 . C . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 05089 ) Di s tr i c tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Re n e e M a r i e Bu mb

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) orSum m aryA ct i on

U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J ul y19, 2007 Bef or e : RE N D ELL , SM I TH A N D J O RD A N , CI RC U I T J U D G ES.

( Fi l ed A ugus t28, 2007)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM M aur i ce Oj s erki s appea l s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he Di s tr i c to f

Ne w J e r s e yd i s mi s s i n g h i s c i v i l r i g h t s c o mp l a i n tp u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( ii) f

o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g ra n te d .2

W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. B ecause Oj s e r k i s h a s b e e n g r a n t e d i n f o r ma p a u p e r i s s t a tu s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 , we re v iew th is a p p e a l f

o r p o ss ib le d ism iss a l p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ). W e w ill di s mi s s a n a pp e a l i f i tha s no a r gu a bl e ba s i s i n l a w orfa c t . N e i t z ke v. W i l l i a ms, 49 0 U. S. 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). Oj s erki s fi l ed a c om pl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, al l egi ng thatfi ve of the A ppel l ees , fourpr i vat e att orney s and a l aw fi r m , ent er ed i nt o a t ai nt ed r et ai neragr eement w i th hi m . Oj s erki s al l eges thatas a r es ul tof the af or ement i oned A ppel l ees ’ confl i ctof i nt er es tand negl i gence , he w as s ubj ectt o an unw ant ed arbi tr at i on hear i ng w i th the rem ainin g A p p ell ee s, w h o are also p ri v ate a tt o rne y s an d a law firm . T h e D istri ct C o u rt d ism iss e d Ojse rk is’s c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(ii) w ith o u t an o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d . W e have hel d w hen a c om pl ai nti s di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w h ich re lief

m a yb e g ra n ted , a p lain tiff sh o u ld b e g ra n ted th e o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d h is compl ai ntunl es s amendm entw oul d be fut i l e. Shane v. Fauver , 213 F. 3d 113, 116 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). H ere , the D istri ct C o u rtco n clud ed that an yam en d m en t t o Ojserkis’s c o m p lain t w o u ld h a v e b e e n f u til e b e c a u se A p p e llee s w e re p riv a te a tto rn e y s a n d p riv a te la w f ir m s , a n d , th u s , w e re n o t a c tin g u n d e r t h e c o lo r o f s ta te la w a s is re q u ir e d b y§ 1 9 8 3 . W e agr ee. “[A ] l aw y err epr es ent i ng a cl i enti s not , byvi r tue of be i ng an off i cerof the c o u rt, a s tate a c to r ‘u n d e r c o lo r o f sta te la w ’ w ith in th e m e a n in g o f § 1 9 8 3 ." P o lk C o u n tyv. D od son, 45 4 U . S . 31 2, 31 8 (198 1). B ecause the A pp el l ees ar e no tst at e act ors,

Ojs e rk is h a s f

a ile d to s ta te a c la im u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . N o a m e n d m e n t c a n c u re th is d e f e c t. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d i s mi s s th i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ). Ojs e rk is ’s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l is d e n ie d .

3