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 

# Purnell N el son v

. K e nneth R app 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 . 09-4465

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_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 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " P urne ll N e l s on v

. Ke nne th R app " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1276. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/12761

HLD- 1 2 5 ( 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- 4465

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

A ppel l ant v . K EN N ETH A . RA PP, P u b lic D e f

e n d e r, D a u p h in C o u n ty Publ i c D efe nder ' s O ffi ce

____________________________________ 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- 02011) 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 fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s ci vi l r i ght s act i on. N el s on i s an2

i n ma t e o f

t h e Da u p h i n Co u n t yP r i s o n . He f i l e d h i s c o mp l a i n tp u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 1983 agai ns tK enneth A . R app, t he Publ i c D efe nderof D auphi n C ount y . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s m e m o ra n d u m se ts f o rth th e a lleg a tio n s o f

th e c o m p lain t, so w e re v isit th e m in su m m a ryo n ly . N e lso n a lleg e d th a t h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts w e re v io late d in re latio n to p ro c e e d in g s in tw o c ri m in a l m a tte rs in th e D a u p h in C o u n ty C o u rt o f C o m m o n P le a s . M ore speci fi cal l y , according t o N el son, he w as arrai gn ed v i a videoco nference, hi s r equ est forat t or neyr epr es ent at i on w as deni ed, and he w as coer ced i nt o pl eadi ng gui l t yt o t he char ges . N el s on al l eged thathe s uffe r ed ment al angui s h, forw hi ch he ha s under gone p s y c h o lo g ic a l tr e a tm e n t, a s a re s u lt o f th e d e f e n d a n t’ s m a lp ra c tic e a n d in c o m p e te n c e . F u rth e r, h e a ss e rte d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t ac ted o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f h is d u ties b yf

a ili n g to appea ri n cour t , and thatt he def endant ’ s unethi cal behavi orvi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i g h t s . As r e l i e f

, Ne l s o n s o u g h t$ 1 mi l l i o n i n c o mp e n s a t o r yd a ma g e s a n d th e s a me amount i n puni t i ve damages , and he a l s o s oughtthe i nj unct i ve r el i ef of hal t i ng the viol at i on of h i s const i tuti on al ri gh t s.

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 not ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , a publ i c def enderdoes notact “undercol orof s t at e l aw ” and i s notl i abl e unders ect i on 1983 w hen per form i ng al aw y er ’ s t r adi t i onal funct i ons as defe ns e couns el . Pol k C ountyv. D ods on, 454 U . S. 312,

325 ( 1981) . D es pi t e N el s on’ s as s ert i on thatthe def endantw as act i ng out s i de of the s cope o f h is pro fe ssion al du ti es, th e c o n d u ct all eg ed h ere fa ll s w ith in d ef en se c o u n sel’s t r adi t i onal funct i ons . T hus , N el s on’ s al l egat i ons fai l t o s t at e a c l ai m unders ect i on 1983.

A ccor di ngl y , fores s ent i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as thos e s etfor t h bythe D i stri ctC ou rti n it s m em orandu m , w e w i l l affirm . N el son’s 

### m ot i on for a ppoi ntm e nt

of c ouns e li s de ni e d.



### 3