Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150501_0001355.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-03 13:39:38
Document Index: 433450572

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| Brown v. Strickland
Brown v. Strickland
Tequan L. Brown, Plaintiff,v.Andy Strickland, Sheriff; Jodie Taylor, Captain, Colleton Co. Sheriff's Ofc.; Matthew Walker, Public Defender, P. Defender Ofc.; Colleton County Sheriff's Office, Defendants.
The plaintiff, Tequan L. Brown, a self-represented pretrial detainee, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Plaintiff is a detainee at the Colleton County Detention Center, and files this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes that the case should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendant Matthew Walker.[1]
The Complaint indicates that Defendant Walker is a public defender who has been appointed to represent Plaintiff in state criminal proceedings. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff complains that, over a fifteen-month period, Defendant Walker failed to make motions on Plaintiff's behalf in his criminal case and only visited Plaintiff one time. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that this defendant's failure "to take any action on [his] behalf" has violated Plaintiff's "rights to [a] speedy trial, life, and liberty." (Id. at 6.)
The Complaint is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which "is not itself a source of substantive rights, ' but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'" Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)). A legal action under § 1983 allows "a party who has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state law to seek relief." City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege:
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
The instant Complaint asserts that Defendant Walker violated Plaintiff's right to due process by failing to provide effective assistance of counsel in state criminal proceedings. However, an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act under color of state law when performing traditional functions as counsel. See Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-24 nn.8-16 (1981) (public defender); Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154, 1155-56 nn.2-3 (4th Cir. 1980) (court-appointed attorney); Deas v. Potts, 547 F.2d 800 (4th Cir. 1976) (private attorney). As Defendant Walker is not considered a state actor amenable to suit under § 1983 for claims associated with his representation of Plaintiff in state court, the Complaint's claims against this defendant are subject to summary dismissal. See Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 91-92 (2009) (noting that "assigned counsel generally are not state actors for purposes of a speedy-trial claim").
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Defendant Matthew Walker be dismissed from this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.