When, as here , a plaintiff is per mitted to procee d in for

ma pa up e ris , the Court is require d 1 to “dismiss t he ca se at a

ny time [ it] deter

mines that. . . the ac tion . . . fails to state a claim on which re lie f m ay

be g ra nte d. ” 28 U. S.C. § 1 91 5( e )( 2) (B )( ii) . T he Court inv ok e s thi s pr ov isi on be c a us e it is disposi ng of the c onstitut ional claims for obvious re asons appa rently overlooke d by

Mr. Rich. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA ER SAL IN E ED WA RD S, ) ) P la in t if f, )

) v. ) Civ. Act ion No. 09-0166 (RM C ) ) AR CH IE RIC H, ) ) Defendan t. )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION I nt h i s d i v er s i t y

ac t i o n , p l ai n t i ff

E rs al i n e E dwa rd s , p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , s ue s a pr ivate attorney , Arc hie Rich, for “ denial of due proce ss[ ,] equal protection of the laws [and] denial of

acc ess to the courts.” Compl. at 1. Mr. Rich moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 (b )( 6 ) o f t he F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure or fo r s umm ary

jud g ment purs ua

nt t o Ru le 56 . T he Cou

rt wi ll dismiss the claims b ro ug ht under the Constitution pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e) , construe the complaint as one f

or leg al malprac tice and defe r ruling on the motion to dis miss pending Mr. Rich’ s clar ification of the r ecor d. 1 I. BACKG ROUND

Th e c omp la int

a lle g a tio ns are a s f

oll ow s. Ms. Ed

wa rd s su sta ine d a

le g inj ur y in Aug ust 2007 while training for a position with the District of Columbia Depa rtment of Corre ctions (“D OC”). She r ece ived a hospital bill in ex cess of $37,000. Compl. at 4. On Februa ry 12, 2008, Ms. Ed wa rd s me t w ith Mr. Ri ch at L arr y C. Wi lli a ms & As so c ia te s and “ sig ne d a

c on tr a c t w ith Attorney L arr y C. W illiams.” Id . at 5. Mr

. Ric h “ tol d [Ms . E dw ard s] no t to dis c us s h e r c a se wi th2

any one, and not to conta ct or talk with any other law y er” ; Mr. Wil liams “ t o l d [ M s . E dwar ds] he would handle he r ca se, but he a ssigne d [her] t o [Mr. Ri ch], w hom he said was his assoc iate.” Id . ¶ 8. Ms. Edwar ds and Mr. Ri ch communicated about her case “for approximately

three months,” and Mr. Rich responde d to Ms. Edwards’s r equest for “all the doc uments he had f iled in her c ase” by providing her w ith a copy

of her employ

ment application with DOC but not her “la wful notice to sue the g overnme nt of the District of Columbia [or her] medical re cords[.]” Id . ¶¶ 9- 11. II. AN AL YSI S Ms. Ed wa rd s’ s c la ims ari sin g un de r t he Con sti tut ion

are c og niza

ble un de r 4 2 U .S. C. § 1983, but that statute cre ates a cause of action ag ainst “per son[s ]” who, whil e acting unde r color of State or District of

Columbi a law, de prive individuals of rights protec ted by the Constitut ion or fede ral law

. S

e tt le s v . U

. S

. P a r o leCo m 'n , 429 F.3d 1098, 1103-04 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (q u o t ati on marks in orig inal) (citation omitted). Be cause “[t] he conduct of reta ined counsel does not rise to the level of state action within the meaningof § 1983[,] ” Le mm on s v . La w Fi rm of Mo rri s a nd Mo rri s , 39 F.3d 264, 266 ( 10 Cir. 1994), Ms. Edwar ds has failed to state a § 1983 c laim ag ainst Mr. Rich. th Se e Bu rt v . B arry , 962 F. Supp. 185, 188 (D.D.C. 1997) (“ The D.C. Circuit has he ld expl icitly that

a tto rn e y s r e pr e se nti ngc lie nts in c ourt do no t e ng a g e in state a c tio n and are , the re fo re , n ot s ub je c t to suit under § 1983.”) (citation omitted).

Mr. Rich seeks dismiss al on the basis that he never establi s h ed an at torney -client

re la tio ns hip wi th M s. Ed

wa rd s, bu t he a lso de fe nd s th e a c tio ns of the att orn ey who di d, L a rr y C. Wil liams, w ho is not a party to this action. Moreove r, Mr. Rich does not den y t h e c o m plaint alleg ations and attac hes to his motion a letter from his la w firm, The Rich F irm, PC, t o Ms. Edwards that contra dicts his denial of an attorney -client re lationship. Most reve aling are Mr. Rich’s statement3

that “ Ihave pr ov ide d y ou wi th y our e nti re fi le , e xclu din g on ly our w or k p ro du c t” and

his of fe r t o make himself “ava ilable to disc uss y our ca se with y ou or y our newattorney at y our direc tion.” The le tte r c los e s w ithMr . Ri c h c on ve y inghis “ re g re t th a t w e we re un a ble to a c hie ve [sa tis fa c tor

y ] re su lts in y our ca se[.] ” De f.’s Ex. 3 (Mar. 5, 2009 letter ).

Th e a fo re me nti on e d le tte r, Mr . Ri c h’ s me ri ts r e sp on se to t he c omp la int

and Ms. Edwar ds’s undisputed complaint alleg ations strong ly sug g est that the par

tie s d i d i n fac t have a

n attorney -client re lationship and that Mr. R ich had some ty pe of r elationship with Mr. Wi lliams’s law fi rm . G ive n M r. Ric h’ s p uzzli ngrespo ns e to t he c omp la int , th e Court

c ann ot d e te rm ine wi th

cer tainty whether it can “a ccor d complete r elief among [the] exis ting pa rties,” F ed. R. Civ. P. 19 (a )( 1) (A ), or “ mus t ord e r that [ Mr . Williams an d/o r his law fir m] be ma de a pa

rt y .” F e d. R. C iv. P. 19 (a )( 2) ; se e id . at ( a )( 1) (B ) ( re qu ir ingjoi nd e r a lso if the no n- pa rt y “ c la ims an int e re st

. . . a nd is s o situated that disposing of the action in the per son’s absenc e may . . . as a pr actica l matter impair or impede the pe rson’s ability to protect the inter est”). A ccor dingly , the Court defe rs ruling on Mr. Ric h’ s mo tio n to dis mis s p e nd inghis c lari fi c a tio n o f t he re c or d. Th e c on sti tut ion a l c la ims

neverthel e s s ar e d is mi s s e d a s a matt e r o f la w . A s e p ar a te O r d e r

a c c o mp an ie s th is M e mo r a n d um Opinion.

Date : Marc h 3 1, 20 09 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER United States District J udg e