Hicks v. Houseton
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on November 1, 2016. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
ANTHONY HICKS
v.
PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 5:16-cv-05182
LEANA HOUSETON, Chief
Public Defender for Washington
County, Arkansas
DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Anthony Hicks.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
The matter is presently before the Court for initial screening of Plaintiff’s pleading pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that this action should be
summarily dismissed pursuant to Section 1915A and Section 1915(e)(2)(B).
I. Background
According to the allegations of the complaint (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff filed a police report on
March 18, 2014, based on identity theft and financial fraud by Reggie Deron Willis. Willis was
arrested and charged in State v. Willis, 72-cr-14-2236A.
Defendant was appointed to represent Willis and during the course of discovery obtained
various documents Plaintiff had provided to the police in connection with the case and also
documents the prosecutor had subpoenaed. According to Plaintiff, Defendant turned the documents
over to Willis without redacting Plaintiff's personal information including his driver's license
number, social security number, his new address and telephone number, his date of birth, place of
birth, bank account information, and prison records. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's conduct
opened him up to being easily preyed upon again.
-1-
Plaintiff maintains the Defendant had an ethical obligation to redact personal and private
information. He seeks to hold her liable for legal malpractice and violations of his right to privacy
under the 9th and 14th amendments. He also believes Defendant should be reprimanded by the state
bar.
II. Discussion
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the Court is obligated to screen the case
prior to service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it,
if it contains claims that: (a) are frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted; or, (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does
not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted
sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, . . . to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541
(8th Cir. 2014) (quoting, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See e.g., Godfrey v. Pulitzer Publishing Co.,
161 F.3d 1137, 1141 (8th Cir. 1998). Generally, the federal district courts may only exercise
jurisdiction over cases in which diversity of citizenship exists and the requisite amount in
controversy is involved and those cases in which a federal question is presented; that is, those cases
involving violations of federal constitutional or statutory law. See e.g., Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co. v. Connect Communications Corp., 225 F.3d 942, 945 (8th Cir. 2000). "The requirement that
-2-
jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter 'spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial
power of the United States' and is 'inflexible and without exception.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a
Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)(quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382
(1884)) (alteration in original)).
"[I]n any § 1983 action the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements
to a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person
acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Parratt v. v. Taylor, 451
U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). In
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, (1981), 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
indigent defendants in state criminal proceedings. In short, the "conduct of counsel generally does
not constitute action under color of law." DuBose v. Kelly, 187 F.3d 999, 1003 (8th Cir. 1999). In
other words, merely acting as counsel for Willis does not make Defendant a state actor.
However, private parties "who act in concert with state officials may be liable under Section
1983." Id. In Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-29 (1980) the Supreme Court stated:
To act "under color of" state law for § 1983 purposes does not require that the
defendant be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in
joint action with the State or its agents. Private persons, jointly engaged with state
officials in the challenged action, are acting 'under color' of law for purposes of §
1983 actions . . . . [H]ere the allegations were that an official act of the defendant
judge was the product of a corrupt conspiracy involving bribery of the judge. Under
these allegations, the private parties conspiring with the judge were acting under
color of state law. .. . Private parties who corruptly conspire with a judge in
connection with such conduct are thus acting under color of state law within the
meaning of § 1983.
Id.
-3-
To the extent the complaint in this case can be read to be asserting a conspiracy claim, the
claim fails because Plaintiff has alleged no facts suggesting the existence of a conspiracy. See e.g,
Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F.2d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 1988)(conspiracy claim requires allegations of
specific facts showing a meeting of the minds among the alleged conspirators). Instead, Plaintiff
alleges Defendant committed legal malpractice, violated Plaintiff's rights to privacy under the Ninth
and Fourteenth Amendments, and should be reprimanded by the state bar. No conspiracy is alleged
to exist.
The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." U.S. Const. amend. IX.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Courts have "recognized a
Fourteenth Amendment due process right for individuals to avoid disclosure of personal matters."
Fort Wayne Women's Health v. Board of Com'rs, Allen County, Ind., 735 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1058
(N.D. Ind. 2010).
Here, Plaintiff claims his right to privacy was violated when documents were provided by
Defendant to her client without first redacting the personal information. The documents at issue
were obtained through discovery and by subpoena for legitimate purposes. See e.g., Schachter v.
Whalen, 581 F.2d 35, 36-37 (2nd Cir. 1978)(The power to subpoena patient records pursuant to
statutory law is not unconstitutional under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments). Plaintiff does not allege that the documents were obtained through improper means
or were improperly disclosed to those not associated with the criminal case. This right, as well as
those discussed above, protects an individual against undue interference by a state actor. A private
-4-
citizen does not act under color of state law.
Finally, as noted above, diversity of citizenship can provide a basis for federal court
jurisdiction. Diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists if there is complete diversity of
citizenship and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. Advance America Servicing of
Arkansas v. Mcginnis, 526 F.3d 1170, 1172 (8th Cir. 2008). In this case, both the Plaintiff and
Defendant are citizens of the State of Arkansas. Diversity of citizenship, therefore, does not exist.
No other basis for federal jurisdiction exists.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that this matter be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), because Plaintiff's claims are frivolous and/or fail to
state claims upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2016.
/s/P.K. Holmes,III
P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?