Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/454/312/case.html
Timestamp: 2017-12-18 22:33:03
Document Index: 9801978

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 336', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 242', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 242', '§ 1983']

Polk County v. Dodson, (full text) :: 454 U.S. 312 (1981) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 454 › Polk County v. Dodson › Case
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 454 U. S. 327. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 454 U. S. 328.
This case arose when the respondent Russell Richard Dodson filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Dodson brought the action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As the factual basis for his lawsuit, Dodson alleged that Martha Shepard, an attorney in the Polk County Offender Advocate's Office, had failed to represent him adequately in an appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court. [Footnote 1]
A full-time employee of the county, Shepard had been assigned to represent Dodson in the appeal of a conviction for robbery. After inquiring into the case, however, she moved for permission to withdraw as counsel on the ground that Dodson's claims were wholly frivolous. [Footnote 2] Shepard accompanied her motion with an affidavit explaining this conclusion.
In his complaint in the District Court, the respondent alleged that Shepard's actions, especially her motion to withdraw, had deprived him of his right to counsel, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, and denied him due process of law. [Footnote 3] He sought injunctive relief as well as damages in the amount of $175,000. To establish that Shepard acted "under color of state law," a jurisdictional requisite for a § 1983 action, Dodson relied on her employment by the county. Dodson also sued Polk County, the Polk County Offender Advocate, and the Polk County Board of Supervisors. He alleged that the Offender Advocate and the Board of Supervisors had established the rules and procedures that Shepard was bound to follow in handling criminal appeals.
We granted certiorari to resolve the division among the Courts of Appeals over whether a public defender acts under color of state law when providing representation to an indigent client. [Footnote 4] 450 U.S. 963 (1981). We now reverse.
In United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 313 U. S. 326 (1941), this Court held that a person acts under color of state law only when exercising power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the
authority of state law." [Footnote 5] In this case, the Offender Advocate for Polk County assigned Martha Shepard to represent Russell Dodson in the appeal of his criminal conviction. This assignment entailed functions and obligations in no way dependent on state authority. From the moment of her appointment, Shepard became Dodson's lawyer, and Dodson became Shepard's client. Except for the source of payment, their relationship became identical to that existing between any other lawyer and client.
ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-3.9 (2d ed.1980). [Footnote 6]
Within the context of our legal system, the duties of a defense lawyer are those of a personal counselor and advocate. It is often said that lawyers are "officers of the court." But the Courts of Appeals are agreed that a lawyer representing a client is not, by virtue of being an officer of the court, a state actor "under color of state law" within the meaning of § 1983. [Footnote 7] In our system, a defense lawyer characteristically opposes the designated representatives of the State. The system assumes that adversarial testing will ultimately advance the public interest in truth and fairness. But it posits that a defense lawyer best serves the public not by acting on behalf of the State or in concert with it, but rather by advancing
"the undivided interests of his client." [Footnote 8] This is essentially a private function, traditionally filled by retained counsel, for which state office and authority are not needed. [Footnote 9]
Because of their custodial and supervisory functions, the state-employed doctors in O'Connor and Estelle faced their employer in a very different posture than does a public defender. Institutional physicians assume an obligation to the mission that the State, through the institution, attempts to achieve. With the public defender, it is different. As argued in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, it is the function of the public defender to enter "not guilty" pleas, move to suppress State's evidence, object to evidence at trial, cross-examine State's witnesses, and make closing arguments in behalf of defendants. [Footnote 10] All of these are adversarial functions. We find it peculiarly difficult to detect any color of state law in such activities.
DR 5-107(B), ABA Code of Professional Responsibility (1976). [Footnote 11]
of the public defenders whom it engages. [Footnote 12] This Court's decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), established the right of state criminal defendants to the "guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against [them].'" Id. at 372 U. S. 345, quoting Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 287 U. S. 69 (1932). Implicit in the concept of a "guiding hand" is the assumption that counsel will be free of state control. There can be no fair trial unless the accused receives the services of an effective and independent advocate. See, e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright, supra; Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U. S. 475 (1978). At least in the absence of pleading and proof to the contrary, we therefore cannot assume that Polk County, having employed public defenders to satisfy the State's obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, has attempted to control their action in a manner inconsistent with the principles on which Gideon rests. [Footnote 13]
Dodson's argument assumes that a private lawyer would have borne no professional obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal. This is error. In claiming that a public defender is peculiarly subject to divided loyalties, Dodson confuses a lawyer's ethical obligations to the judicial system with an allegiance to the adversary interests of the State in a criminal prosecution. Although a defense attorney has a duty to advance all colorable claims and defenses, the canons of professional ethics impose limits on permissible advocacy. It is the obligation of any lawyer -- whether privately retained or publicly appointed -- not to clog the courts with frivolous motions or appeals. [Footnote 14] Dodson has no legitimate complaint that his lawyer refused to do so.
As a matter of empirical fact, it may or may not be true that the professional obligation to withdraw from frivolous appeals will be invoked with disproportionate frequency in cases involving indigent prisoners. The recent burgeoning of postconviction remedies has undoubtedly subjected the legal system to unprecedented strains, including increased demands for legal assistance. [Footnote 15] The State of Iowa has responded by authorizing the provision of greater representation than the Constitution requires. Its system of public defenders contemplates the extension of legal assistance through the various tiers of postconviction review, incorporating only the general ethical limitation that counsel should withdraw from frivolous cases. [Footnote 16]
In this context, Dodson argues that public defenders making withdrawal decisions are viewed by indigent prisoners as hostile state actors. We think there is little justification for this view, if indeed it is widely held. [Footnote 17]
never acts in that role. In Branti v. Finkel, 445 U. S. 507 (1980), for example, we found that a public defender so acted when making hiring and firing decisions on behalf of the State. It may be -- although the question is not present in this case -- that a public defender also would act under color of state law while performing certain administrative and possibly investigative functions. Cf. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 424 U. S. 430-431, and n. 33 (1976). And, of course, we intimate no views as to a public defender's liability for malpractice in an appropriate case under state tort law. See Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U. S. 193, 444 U. S. 198 (1979). [Footnote 18] With respect to Dodson's § 1983 claims against Shepard, we decide only that a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding. [Footnote 19] Because it was based on such activities, the complaint against Shepard must be dismissed.
In his complaint in the District Court, Dodson also asserted § 1983 claims against the Offender Advocate, Polk County, and the Polk County Board of Supervisors. Section 1983 will not support a claim based on a respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658, 436 U. S. 694 (1978). To the extent that Dodson's claims rest on this basis, they fail to present a federal claim.
The question is whether either allegation describes a constitutional tort actionable under § 1983. We conclude not. In Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, supra, we held that official policy must be "the moving force of the constitutional violation" in order to establish the liability of a government body under § 1983. Id. at 436 U. S. 694. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362, 423 U. S. 370-377 (1976) (general allegation of administrative negligence fails to state a constitutional claim cognizable under § 1983). In this case, the respondent failed to allege any policy that arguably violated his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments. He did assert that assistant public defenders refused to prosecute certain appeals on grounds of their frivolity. But a policy of withdrawal from frivolous cases would not violate the Constitution. Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967). And respondent argued the existence of no impermissible policy pursuant to which the withdrawals might have occurred. Respondent further asserted that he personally was deprived of a Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. Again, however, he failed to allege that this deprivation was caused by any constitutionally forbidden rule or procedure.
Iowa Rule App. Proc. 104(f).
Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U. S. 193, 444 U. S. 204 (1979):
Although lawyers are generally licensed by the States, "they are not officials of government by virtue of being lawyers." In re Griffiths, 413 U. S. 717, 413 U. S. 729 (1973).
Relying on such cases as Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715 (1961), and Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163 (1972), the respondent claims that the State's funding of criminal defenses makes it a "joint participant" in that enterprise, locked in a "symbiotic relationship" with individual public defenders. He urges us to hold on this theory that public defenders act under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983. We cannot do so. In both Burton and Moose Lodge, the question was whether "state action" was present. In this case, the question is whether a public defender -- who is concededly an employee of the county -- acted "under color of state law" in her representation of Russell Dodson. Although this Court has sometimes treated the questions as if they were identical, see United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 383 U. S. 794, and n. 7 (1966), we need not consider their relationship in order to decide this case. Our factual inquiry into the professional obligations and functions of a public defender persuades us that Shepard was not a "joint participant" with the State and that, when representing respondent, she was not acting under color of state law.
The dissenting opinion, post at 454 U. S. 328, describes the public defender as "a full-time state employee, working in an office fully funded and extensively regulated by the State and acting to fulfill a state obligation." The dissent reasons from this description that, for purposes of determining the "under color of state law" question, the function performed by the public defender is immaterial. There is no difference in this respect, the dissent contends, between administrative functions, see Branti v. Finkel, 445 U. S. 507 (1980), and a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding. This view ignores the basic distinction that in the latter capacity a public defender is not acting on behalf of the State; he is the State's adversary.
One perhaps should be particularly circumspect when he finds himself in solitary dissent. See Commissioner v. "Americans United" Inc., 416 U. S. 752, 416 U. S. 763 (1974) (dissenting opinion). On careful reflection, however, I am convinced that my position is a valid one, and I therefore set forth my views in opposition to those of the Court.
The Court holds for the first time today that a government official's "employment relationship" is no more than a "relevant factor" in determining whether he acts under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983. Ante at 454 U. S. 321. Only
last Term, in Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981), the Court noted that defendant prison officials unquestionably satisfied the "under color of state law" requirement because they "were, after all, state employees in positions of considerable authority." Id. at 451 U. S. 535-536. Thus began, and ended, the Court's discussion of the "color of law" question in that case. As in Taylor, the county employee sued in this action presumptively acts under color of state law. See also Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U. S. 149, 436 U. S. 157, n. 5 (1978).
The definition of "under color of" state law relied upon by the Court here and articulated in United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299 (1941), requires that the defendants in a § 1983 action have committed the challenged acts "in the course of their performance of duties," and have misused power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law. . . ." Id. at 313 U. S. 325-326. See also Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 325 U. S. 110 (1945) (plurality opinion).
The Court insists that public defenders, unlike other state employees, are free from state control because they are not subject to administrative direction -- both because ethical standards require that their professional judgment not be sacrificed to the interests of their employers and because the State is obligated to provide indigent defendants with independent advocates. [Footnote 2/1] This distinction ignores both precedent and reality. The Court long has held that a state official acts under color of law when the State does not authorize, or even know of, his conduct. See, e.g., Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 398 U. S. 152 (1970); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961). That the State did not instruct Shepard to withdraw from respondent's case is therefore irrelevant to the question whether she acted under color of state law in so doing.
complaint in Gamble stated claims against Dr. Gray in his capacity both as medical director for the Texas Department of Corrections and as treating physician. Gray was sued because he allegedly had given the plaintiff substandard medical care -- the doctor's duty to the public and his custodial and supervisory functions were not at issue. [Footnote 2/2] If the Court had determined that Gray acted under color of state law only in his capacity as a custodian and administrator, it would have dismissed the claims against him for want of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than on the merits.
whom he owes his appointment and the very existence of the office. See §§ 336A.3, 336A.1. And surely the public defender's staff must conform to whatever policies and regulations the office or the State imposes, including those aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of representation. In this case, for example, while the county may not have directed petitioner Shepard to withdraw from respondent's case, [Footnote 2/3] it certainly could have established general guidelines describing the factors a public defender should consider in determining which appeals are frivolous, and the proper treatment of such appeals. [Footnote 2/4]
under color of state law when exercising his official duties is not overridden by the public defender's ethical obligations to his client. [Footnote 2/5]
Although holding that petitioner Shepard may not be held liable under § 1983 for withdrawing from respondent's appeal, the Court limits its ruling to cases where the public defender performs "a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding." Ante at 454 U. S. 325. The Court appears to concede that a public defender may act under color of state law when performing unspecified administrative and investigative functions, or even when acting as an advocate -- if his conduct is "nontraditional," or if the plaintiff pleads and proves that the State influenced the attorney's representation. See ante at 454 U. S. 325, and n.19, and 454 U. S. 322. These attempts to draw distinctions based on function are unconvincing.
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), cited by the Court, ante at 454 U. S. 325, does not support such line-drawing. Based on policy considerations that are inapplicable here, see n. 8, infra, the Court held in Imbler that the prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity for actions taken in his role as an advocate. The Court refused to decide, however, whether the same policies require immunity for prosecutors acting in their administrative or investigative roles. Not only did the Imbler Court therefore fail to endorse the functional test adopted here, but it pointed to the difficulties it foresaw in implementing such a test. See 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 431, n. 33.
Moreover, the question of immunity -- what type of affirmative defense is to be afforded a state official sued under § 1983 -- is completely different from the issue whether an employee acts under color of state law -- a determination that goes to a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint. If a defendant does not act under color of state law, a federal court has no power to entertain a § 1983 complaint against him. The immunity doctrine, which is based on common law traditions and policy considerations, is a defense that must be pleaded, and is not relevant to a court's power to consider the case. Even officials protected by absolute immunity act under color of state law, and Imbler did not indicate to the contrary; in fact, absolute immunity protects a prosecutor from § 1983 liability only as long as his actions are within the scope of the immunity. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 419, n. 13. The Court nowhere suggested in Imbler that the functional test could properly be used in any other context.
The Court also disclaims any intent to disturb cases in which public defenders have been prosecuted under the criminal counterpart of § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 242, for extorting payment from clients' friends or relatives, ante at 454 U. S. 325, n.19, citing United States v. Senak, 477 F.2d 304 (CA7), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 856 (1973), apparently because the Court does not consider such conduct a "traditional" function of an attorney. [Footnote 2/6] Yet the Court of Appeals' holding in Senak that the attorney acted under color of law is inconsistent with the
Court's line-drawing here. [Footnote 2/7] As the final loophole, the Court apparently leaves open the possibility that an indigent defendant could plead and prove that the State so influenced the public defender assigned to his case as to make the public defender liable under § 1983. See ante at 454 U. S. 322. What type of state intervention is sufficient, and how a plaintiff is supposed to allege such facts before discovery, are not specified.
I am sympathetic with the Court's desire to protect public defenders, who represent indigent defendants in good faith, from a § 1983 suit by every dissatisfied client. But the Court's concern for public defender programs -- and its seeming hostility to the merits of respondent's claims, see ante at 454 U. S. 323-324, and n. 17 -- do not justify the approach taken by the
Court today. To recognize that public defenders act under color of state law would not transform every legal malpractice into a constitutional violation. Cf. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 429 U. S. 105-106. Presumably, some immunity would be provided public defenders sued under § 1983. [Footnote 2/8] The Court always has seen fit before to rely on immunity and the procedures available for dismissing meritless complaints in order to protect state officials. See, e.g., Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 438 U. S. 507-508 (1978); cf. Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U. S. 193, 444 U. S. 200, n. 17 (1979). I would do the same here.
The Court also says that a public defender's ethical duties and obligations are the same as those of a privately retained lawyer, and concludes that the public defender serves "essentially a private function . . . for which state office and authority are not needed." Ante at 454 U. S. 319. The fact that a state official's role is parallel to one in the private sector, however, has never before deterred the Court from holding that the former is action under color of state law. Section 1983 is meant to proscribe certain actions by state officials even though identical conduct by private persons is not included within the statute's scope. Cf. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 (1976); see also Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 130, 378 U. S. 135 (1964) ("If an individual is possessed of state authority and purports to act under that authority, his action is state action. It is irrelevant that he might have taken the same action had he acted in a purely private capacity . . ."). Although Griffin involved "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, "state action" and "under color of state law" have consistently been treated as incorporating identical requirements. See n. 6, infra.
Similarly, in O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563 (1975), the defendant, a psychiatrist and superintendent of a state mental hospital, was not sued for actions taken pursuant to his responsibilities to protect the public; the evidence clearly showed that the plaintiff was hospitalized for reasons other than dangerousness to himself and others. See id. at 422 U. S. 567-568, 422 U. S. 574, n. 9.
Reasoning that § 1983 claims may not be based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, the Court concludes that respondent has not stated a claim against the Offender Advocate, Polk County, or the County Board of Supervisors. See ante at 454 U. S. 325-327. I agree with the Court of Appeals, however, that respondent did allege that these defendants had "established and layed [sic] out the ground rules" for the public defender's office and had "authorize[d] [petitioner Shepard] to act in the manner prescribed in [the] complaint. . . ." App. 5. Respondent also alleged that other public defenders in the Offender Advocate's Office had acted in the same manner as had Shepard, and he challenged the "process" by which the office represented indigents. Id. at 13. Although respondent did not point to any particular official policy pursuant to which Shepard had acted in withdrawing from his case, his general allegations of the existence of such a policy, "however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519, 404 U. S. 520 (1972). If respondent is unable to substantiate his claims, the complaint, of course, may be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.
Although I find the Court's precedents on the definition of "under color of" state law persuasive here, I also draw support from the Court's discussions of state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. I find no basis for the Court's intimation, ante at 454 U. S. 322, n. 12, that the two doctrines incorporate different requirements. See United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 383 U. S. 794, n. 7 (1966). To the extent that the Court has analyzed the two concepts separately, it has done so in § 1983 suits against private actors. In Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U. S. 149, 436 U. S. 157, n. 5 (1978), the Court observed:
"Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 398 U. S. 152 (1970) (citations omitted)."
The principles articulated in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715 (1961), for discerning state action in the conduct of a private party are therefore helpful by way of analogy. First, the public defender's office "constitute[s] a physically and financially integral and, indeed, indispensable part of the State's plan," id. at 365 U. S. 723-724, to fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide representation to indigents. Second, the relationship between the State and the public defender is a symbiotic one: the State is able to satisfy its responsibility to supply counsel to defendants, and the public defender is gainfully employed. Finally, the State is responsible for the public defender's office, and can attempt to ensure that clients receive effective assistance of counsel, for example, by hiring qualified personnel, providing sufficient funding, and enforcing strict standards of competence. In cases of ineffective assistance by public defenders, then, it may be said that the State
Id. at 365 U. S. 725.
Again, the Court's hand is forced somewhat by precedent -- even those officials afforded absolute immunity from civil damages under § 1983 are susceptible to prosecution under § 242 for the willful violation of civil rights. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 424 U. S. 429 (1976). The Court has consistently held that the two provisions incorporate the same "under color of state law" requirement. See, e.g., Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 398 U. S. 152, n. 7 (1970); United States v. Price, 383 U.S. at 383 U. S. 794, n. 7.
I do not discuss this issue in detail because the Court does not reach it, but I assume that public defenders should be afforded qualified immunity. Absolute immunity has been extended only to those in positions that have a common law history of immunity. See, e.g., Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 386 U. S. 554-555 (1967). Moreover, public defenders' jobs do not subject them to conflicting responsibilities to a number of constituencies, so that absolute immunity is necessary to ensure principled decisionmaking; in fact, the threat of § 1983 claims by dissatisfied clients may provide additional incentive for competent performance of a public defender's duties. See Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U. S. 193, 444 U. S. 203-204 (1979).