2008 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 2-25-2008 

# S t a ck hou se v . C ro ck e 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 . 07-4296

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_2008

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 2008 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 " S t a ck hous e v . C r ocke r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1528. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1528C L D - 130 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- 4296

___________ STEP HEN STACK HO USE, A ppel l ant

v. CHRI S TOP HER CR OCKER, OF C ROCKER AND CROCKER L AW OFF I 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 03957) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Ti m othyJ . Savage

____________________________________ 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 February14, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: February25, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM St ephen St ackhous e appe al s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai nt . W e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ).2

I n 2007, St ackhous e fi l ed the i ns t antl aw s ui tus i ng a pr e- pr i nt ed form for p ri s o n e r’ s la w s u its u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , a lth o u g h h e w a s n o t in c a rc e ra te d a t th e tim e . S tac k h o u se se e k s d a m a g e s f ro m th e p riv a te a tto rn e y , C h risto p h e r C o c k e r, w h o p re v io u sly re p re se n ted h im in a se p a ra te la w su it h e f iled a g a in st th e w a rd e n o f th e P h ilad e lp h ia D et ent i on C ent erand the C i t yof Phi l adel phi a fori nj ur i es he s us t ai ned w hi l e bei ng hel d at t he Phi l adel phi a D et ent i on C ent eri n 1994. I n t hats ui t , St ackhous e al l eged thatanother i nm at e hi thi m i n t he bac k of the hea d w i t h a bas ebal l bat , and he w as hos pi t al i zed w i th a ce reb ral he m o rrha g e. H e se tt led w ith the w ard en an d the C ity , an d the D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed thatl aw s ui t . St ackhous e fi l ed an a ppeal , butw e di s m i s s ed i tbeca us e i tw as u n tim e ly. B eca us e St ackhous e i s pr ocee di ng i n form a paupe r i s , w e mustanal y ze hi s appea l for po ssi ble di sm i ssal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(e) (2) (B ). U nd er that s t atute, w e m ust di s m i s s an appe al i f i tl acks ar guabl e mer i ti n fac torl aw . See N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). A l t ho ug h h i s cl ai m i s not exact l ycl ear i n the i nst ant com plai nt, S t ackh ou se a p p e a rs to b e d iss a tisf

ied w ith th e re su lt fro m th e p rio r la w su it an d a lleg e s th a t h is att o rne yfa il ed to arg u e f o r a c o n ti n u an ce . A s the D istri ct C o u rtp o ints ou t, h o w ev er, St ackhous e has fr amed t he cl ai m as one under§ 1983 byus i ng the pr e- pr i nt ed pr i s oner l aw s ui tform . I n or dert o br i ng a cl ai m under§ 1983, St ackhous e mustdemonstr at e that C r ockeract ed undercol orof s t at e l aw and depr i ved hi m of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . See3

L ugarv. E dm onds on O i l , C o. , 457 U . S. 922, 930 ( 1982) . B eca us e hi s pr i vat e att orney w as nota s t at e ac t or , how ever , he coul d notbe l i abl e under§ 1983. See A ngel i co v. L ehi gh V al l eyH os p. , I nc. , 184 F. 3d 268, 276 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ; s ee a l s o Pol k C ount yv. D ot s on, 454 U . S. 312, 318 ( 1981) . St ackhous e pr ovi des no r eas on thatC r ockers houl d be cons i der ed t o have a ct ed undercol orof s t at e l aw . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed th e la w s u it u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e ). W e w o u ld ad d that, ev en if w e w ere to d isr eg ard the u sag e o f th e p re-p ri n ted f o rm a n d th e § 1 9 8 3 lab e l, th e c o m p lain t d o e s n o t co n tain a b a sis f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to o th e rw ise e x e rc ise its ju risd ictio n . S tac k h o u se c o u ld b e c laim in g th a t h is a tto rn e yis l i abl e form al pr act i ce, butas a s t at e l aw cl ai m , ther e i s no bas i s of fe der al j ur i s di ct i on h e re . L ik e w is e , th e p la in tif f d o e s n o t a lle g e d iv e rs ity ju ri s d ic tio n . T h e a p p ea l w il l be d ism issed u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).