Brown v. Abbs
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Pro Se Complaint filed by Jeffrey S Brown. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 9/23/14. (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JEFFREY S. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES J. ABBS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cause No. 1:14-CV-251-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
Jeffrey S. Brown, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court applies the same
standard as when deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal, a complaint
must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581
F.3d 599, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 603. The court must bear in mind that “[a] document filed pro
se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se 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) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Brown’s lawsuit stems from the alleged actions of his appointed public defender, James
J. Abbs, while he was awaiting trial during a state court criminal case. Brown claims that Abbs
provided ineffective assistance in a variety of ways prior to and during trial. This claim is
foreclosed. The Constitution only protects against acts of defendants acting under color of state
law, Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006), and the Supreme Court has 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 County v. Dodson, 454 U.S.
312, 325 (1981). Furthermore, to the extent Brown is seeking some type of order declaring that
his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated in the criminal case, he can only seek such
relief in a habeas action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
488 (1973) (habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or
duration of his confinement). Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A.
SO ORDERED on September 23, 2014.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?