Case Name: Gregory Scott CLANTON, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1990-02-06
Citations: 893 F.2d 757
Docket Number: No. 89-2232
Parties: Gregory Scott CLANTON, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 893
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
Gregory Scott CLANTON, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 89-2232.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 6, 1990.
James T. Oitzinger, Gerald M. Birnberg, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
Roderick Q. Lawrence, Asst. County Atty., Houston, Tex., for defendant-appel-lee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Scott Clanton appeals the district court's 12(b)(6) dismissal of his § 1983 claim against Harris County. He sued Harris County for damages arising from State District Judge Albert Pruett's alleged failure to appoint counsel to defend him from drug charges in timely fashion. A panel of this court recently concluded that Texas district judges act for the state in appointing counsel for indigent criminal defendants, and the county is not responsible under § 1983 for their actions in this regard. Hamill v. Wright, 870 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir.1989). We affirm on that basis. See also Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736, 744 (5th Cir.1986) (Texas district judges "are undeniably state elected officials"); Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1037, 106 S.Ct. 605, 88 L.Ed.2d 583 (1985); Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297 (5th Cir.1980).
AFFIRMED.