Opinion ID: 664146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Public Defenders Acting Under Color of State Law

Text: 19 We turn finally to Hunt's request for damages against his counsel, Manter and Sublette, of the Colorado State Public Defender's Office. In dismissing this claim, the Magistrate Judge relied on Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 453, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981), which held 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. Because Hunt alleges that Manter and Sublette engaged in a conspiracy with state actors, however, Polk County does not end our inquiry. 20 In Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920, 104 S.Ct. 2820, 2824, 81 L.Ed.2d 758 (1984), the Supreme Court refined Polk County by holding that a public defender acts under color of state law when engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive his client of constitutional rights. We recognize the inherent difficulty of producing direct evidence of a conspiracy and therefore proceed with caution in considering the pre-trial dismissal of Hunt's complaint against Manter and Sublette. See Fisher v. Shamburg, 624 F.2d 156, 162 (10th Cir.1980). At the same time, however, we have held that [w]hen a plaintiff in a Sec. 1983 action attempts to assert the necessary 'state action' by implicating state officials or judges in a conspiracy with private defendants, mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action. Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983). In fact, Sooner Products instructs that the pleadings standard is even stricter where the state officials allegedly involved in the conspiracy are immune from suit, as are the state court judges and prosecutors in the instant case. Id. 21 Here, neither the Magistrate Judge nor the district court considered Hunt's claim of conspiracy between Manter, Sublette, and the state actors also named as defendants in this suit. Nevertheless, our review of Hunt's pleadings reveals that, while he alleges specific actions relating to the adequacy of counsel at trial, he presents no facts establishing an agreement or meeting of the minds between Manter, Sublette, and the state actors. 4 See Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1230-31 (10th Cir.1990) (dismissing conspiracy claim because plaintiff offered no evidence of communication between alleged co-conspirators and nothing that would even give rise to the inference that they conspired). 22 Because Hunt's conclusory allegations of conspiracy between Manter, Sublette, and the state actors are unsupported by facts, Hunt has failed to demonstrate that Manter and Sublette acted under color of state law. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the Sec. 1983 complaint against Manter and Sublette.VII. Conclusion 23 The district court order dismissing Hunt's claim is therefore AFFIRMED.