2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-24-2010

Purnell Nelson v. Dauphin County Pub Defender

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-4466

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Purnell Nelson v. Dauphin County Pub Defender" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1275.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1275
1

HLD-126 (April 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-4466

___________

PURNELL R. NELSON,

Appellant

v.

DAUPHIN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER;

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;

KENNETH A. RAPP

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-02066)

District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 30, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

 (Opinion filed: May 24, 2010) 

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM.

Purnell R. Nelson appeals from the order of the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his civil rights action filed pursuant to
2

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nelson, an inmate of the Dauphin County Prison, named as defendants

Kenneth A. Rapp, the Dauphin County Public Defender; the office of the Dauphin

County Public Defender; and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Nelson alleged that

his constitutional rights were violated by the Public Defender when he failed to notify

him that a Dauphin County warrant was issued for his arrest. Nelson explained that he

was arrested in May 2009 for a parole violation and was placed in the Dauphin County

Prison. While he was housed there, in June 2009, an arrest warrant was issued for an

outstanding capias, but the Public Defender failed to notify him. Upon Nelson’s release

in July 2009, he was arrested on the capias, was searched, and had a marijuana joint

seized. He was then detained at the Dauphin County Prison. He noted that he filed a

motion to dismiss based on an illegal search and seizure, lack of probable cause for arrest,

and the arresting officer’s failure to act in accordance with the law and provide him with

Miranda warnings. Nelson alleged that he suffered mental anguish and psychological

damage as a result of the Public Defender’s malpractice and incompetence. Further, he

asserted that the Public Defender acted outside the scope of his duties by failing to notify

Nelson of his pending case before he was arrested on the warrant, and that the Public

Defender’s unethical misconduct violated his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. As relief, Nelson sought $1 million in

compensatory damages and the same amount in punitive damages.
3

Nelson was granted in forma pauperis status in District Court. The District

Court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. This appeal followed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Upon consideration of

the record, we will affirm. As noted by the District Court, criminal defense attorneys,

including public defenders, do not act “under color of state law” and are not liable under

section 1983 when performing traditional functions as defense counsel. See Polk County

v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Despite Nelson’s assertion that the Public

Defender acted outside of the scope of his duties, his allegations concern functions that

Nelson expected the Public Defender to perform as defense counsel. Nelson’s allegations

against defendant Rapp fail to state a claim under section 1983. Further, we agree with

the District Court’s conclusion that the complaint fails to state a claim against the office

of the Public Defender and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The complaint makes

no allegations against these two defendants. To the extent that the office of the Public

Defender was named as a defendant only in relation to Nelson’s allegations against

Rapp, the claims must fail. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.

1986) (“defendant in a civil rights action must have a personal involvement in the alleged

wrongs; liability cannot be predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.”) 

We also agree with the District Court’s conclusion that no claim can be made against the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, because it is not a “person” subject to suit under section
4

1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“We hold that

neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under §

1983.”).

Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons as those set forth by the

District Court in its memorandum, we will affirm. Nelson’s motion for appointment of

counsel is denied.