Hunter v. O'Neill et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/25/14. (rwc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MARION P. HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 14-025-RGA
BRENDAN O'NEILL, et aI.,
Defendants.
Marion P. Hunter, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, Delaware,
Pro Se Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
~,
March
2014
Wilmington, Delaware
A~ifJs.~
Plaintiff Marion P. Hunter, an inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional
Institution, Wilmington, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (0.1.5). The
Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(b)
and § 1915A(a).
Plaintiff has a pending criminal matter in State Court and is represented by
attorneys from the Office of the Public Defender of the State of Delaware. He alleges
that the Delaware Department of Justice keeps requesting extensions of time to the
forty-five day indictment process, and the Public Defender's Office "stood by and did
nothing." Plaintiff alleges that the Public Defender's Office has failed in its responsibility
to protect his rights. He seeks injunctive relief in the form of effective assistance of
counsel.
This Court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma
pauperis and prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental defendant). The Court must accept all factual
allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se
plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008).
Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his Complaint,
"however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants fail as a matter of law. When bringing a
§ 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal
right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Public defenders do not act under color of
state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in
criminal proceedings. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981).
For the above reasons, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1). The Court finds that amendment is
futile.
An appropriate order will be entered.
2
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?