Court Opinion

ID: 9387338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-17 18:00:27.351688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.966830
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20574        Document: 00516713547             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/17/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                                                                 FILED
                                       No. 22-20574                          April 17, 2023
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
   Willie Darries,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   R.P. Cornelius,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:19-CV-3333

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Plaintiff-Appellant Willie Darries filed a civil rights action under 42
   U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant-Appellee R.P. Cornelius, his former
   defense attorney, violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by
   fraudulently “pleading him guilty.” More specifically, Mr. Darries claims
   that Mr. Cornelius fraudulently told the court that Mr. Darries was
   competent.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20574      Document: 00516713547         Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/17/2023

          Mr. Cornelius, a public defender, represented Mr. Darries in multiple
   criminal cases including the one that underlies this civil action, in which Mr.
   Darries was convicted of attempting to deliver a controlled substance. Mr.
   Cornelius claims that he never believed that Mr. Darries was incompetent.
   Rather, he noticed that Mr. Darries was a “very skillful negotiator,” and
   would file grievances, threaten to file complaints against police officers, and
   plea bargain his cases with “a clear understanding of punishment levels and
   differences between first-, second-, and third-degree felonies[.]”
          The district court dismissed this action on two grounds: (1) Mr.
   Cornelius, in his capacity as a public defender, was not a state actor under §
   1983; and (2) the statute of limitations had passed.
          The district court is correct on both grounds. The Supreme Court
   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.” Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 3254 (1981).
   Further, the district court correctly noted that the deadline for filing this
   action was two years after the cause of action occurred, which would have
   been in 2015, two years after the 2013 conviction. Winfrey v. Rogers, 901 F.3d
   483, 492 (5th Cir. 2018). Mr. Darries filed his action six years after his 2013
   conviction—approximately four years after the deadline passed.
          For these reasons, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.