2010 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 5-24-2010 

# Purnel l N el son v

. D auphin C ounty Pub D efe nde r 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 . 09-4466

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

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 l l a nova 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P ur ne ll N e l s on v

. D aup hin C ounty P ub D efe nde r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1275. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/12751

HLD- 1 2 6 ( Ap r i l 2 0 1 0 ) 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. 09- 4466

___________ P UR NE L L R. NE L S ON,

A ppel l ant v . DAU P HI N COUN TY P UBLI C DEF ENDER; CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A;

K EN N ETH A . RA PP

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 02066) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 A pr i l 30, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : M ay2 4 , 2 0 1 0 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.



### Pur ne l lR. Ne l s onap p ea ls from the o rde r of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia d ism iss in g h is c iv il righ ts a c tio n f iled p u rsu a n t to2

4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . N e lso n , an in m a te o f th e D a u p h in C o u n tyP riso n , n a m e d a s d e f e n d a n ts K e n n e th A . R a p p , the D a u p h in C o u n tyP u b lic D e f e n d e r; th e o f

f ice o f th e D a u p h in C ount yPubl i c D efe nder ; and the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a. N el s on al l eged that hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed byt he Publ i c D efe nderw hen he f ai l ed t o not i fy hi m t hata D auphi n C ount yw arr antw as i s s ued forhi s arr es t . N el s on expl ai ned thathe w a s a rre ste d in M a y2 0 0 9 f o r a p a ro le v io latio n a n d w a s p lac e d in th e D a u p h in C o u n ty Pr i s on. W hi l e he w as hous ed ther e, i n J une 2009, an arr es tw arr antw as i s s ued foran ou t st and i ng capias , bu tt he P ub l i c D efen der fai l ed to noti fyhim . U po n N el son’s r el ease i n J ul y2009, he w as arr es t ed on the ca pi as , w as s ear ched, and had a m ar i j uana j oi nt s ei zed. H e w as t hen det ai ned att he D auphi n C ount yPr i s on. H e not ed thathe fi l ed a m o tio n to d ism iss b a se d o n a n ill e g a l se a rc h a n d se izu re , lac k o f p ro b a b le c a u se f

o r a rre st, a n d th e a rre stin g o f

f ice r’s f a ilu re to a c t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e law a n d p ro v id e h im w ith M i r anda w arni ngs . N el s on al l eged thathe s uffe r ed ment al angui s h and ps y chol ogi cal damage as a r es ul tof the Publ i c D efe nder ’ s m al pr act i ce a nd i ncompet ence . Fur t her , he as s er t ed thatt he Publ i c D efe nderact ed out s i de the s cope of hi s dut i es byfai l i ng t o not i fy N e lso n o f

h is p e n d in g c a se b e f

o re h e w a s a rre ste d o n th e w a rra n t, an d th a t th e P u b lic D efe nder ’ s unethi cal m i s conductvi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s undert he Fi r s t , Four t h, E ig h th , an d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts. A s re lief , N e lso n so u g h t $ 1 m ill io n in com pen sat orydam ages an d the sam e am ou nt i n p un i t i ve d am ages.3 N el s on 

### wa s gr ant e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris 

### st at

us in Dist ri ct Co urt. Th e Dis tric t Co urt dis mis se d the com

plaint un der 28 U .S.C. § 19 15 (e )( 2)(B)( ii ) for failure t o statea c l a i m upon whi c h r e l i e f m ay

be gr ant e d. Thi s a

ppe a lfol l owe d. W e have juri s di c t i on pur s uant t o 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Upon c ons i de r at i on of th e reco rd , w e w ill af

f irm . A s noted byt he D i stri ctC ou rt , cri m i nal defense att orney s, i ncl udi ng publ i c def

ender s , do notact“undercol orof s t at e l aw ” and a r e notl i abl e under se c tio n 1 9 8 3 w h e n p e rf o rm in g tra d iti o n a l f

u n c tio n s a s d e f

e n se c o u n se l. S e e P o lk C o u n ty v . D o d so n , 4 5 4 U .S . 3 1 2 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 1 ). D e sp ite N e lso n ’s a ss e rtio n th a t th e P u b lic D efe nderact ed out s i de of the s cope of hi s dut i es , hi s al l egat i ons conce r n funct i ons t hat N el s on expec t ed the Publ i c D efe ndert o per for m as defe ns e couns el . N el s on’ s al l egat i ons agai ns tdefe ndantR app fa i l t o s t at e a c l ai m unders ect i on 1983. 

### F urth er, w e ag ree w ith the Dis tric t Court ’s conclusi onthat the c om plaint fail s t o statea c la im agai nst t he of fice of the Pub li c Defender and the Commonweal th of Penn sylvania . The com

plaint m akes n o alleg atio n s ag ain st th ese tw o d ef en d ants. T o th e ex tent th at th e o f f ice o f th e P ub lic D ef en d er w as n am edas a d ef en d ant o n ly

inrelatio nto N elso n ’s alleg atio n s ag ain st R ap p , th e claim s m

u st f ail. S ee R o d e v . D ell arc iprete, 84 5 F . 2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 1986) ( “def

endanti n a ci vi l r i ght s act i on m us thave a per s onal i nvol vementi n t he al l eged w r ongs ; l i abi l i t ycannotbe pr edi cat ed s ol el yon t he oper at i on of r es pondeat s uper i or . ”) 

### W e a l s o a gr e e wi th the Di s tri c t Court ’ s c onc lus i on that

no c l a i m c an be m a de a ga i ns t

the C o mm o nw ealtho f

P enn sylv an ia, beca us e i ti s nota “pe r s on” s ubj ectt o s ui tunders ect i on4

1983. See W i l l v. M i ch. D ep’ tof St at e Pol i ce, 491 U . S. 58, 71 ( 1989) ( “W e hol d t hat n eith er a S tat e n o r i ts of ficials acting in the iro ff ici al ca p ac it ies are ‘p erso n s’ un d er § 1 9 8 3 . ”). A ccor di ngl y , fores s ent i al l yt he s ame r eas ons as t hos e s etfor t h byt he D is tr ic t C o u rt in its m e m o ra n d u m , w e w ill a f f ir m . 

### Ne l s on’ s m ot i on for a ppoi ntm e nt

of c ouns e li s de ni e d.