BROOKS v. BARNETT

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 4/30/2018. (JB, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NORRIS BROOKS,
Civil Action No. 18-1522 (CCC)
Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BROOKE M. BARNETT, ESQ.,
Defendant.

This matter has come before the Court on a civil rights Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff
Norris Brooks pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Because Plaintiff is proceeding informa pauperis,

(see ECF No. 7), the Court must screen the Complaint to determine whether the case shall be
dismissed because it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§

191 5(e)(2). Having completed this screening, and for the reasons stated below, the Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.
The Complaint names a single defendant, Brooke M. Barnett, Esq., Plaintiffs counsel in a
prior state criminal matter that is the subject of his lawsuit. However, neither public defenders nor
private attorneys are state actors liable under

§ 1983, because they are not persons acting under

the color of law. See Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 91(2009) (“[T]he relationship between a
defendant and the public defender representing him is ‘identical to that existing between any other
lawyer and client.’ Unlike a prosecutor or the court, assigned counsel ordinarily is not considered
a state actor.”) (citation omitted); Rieco v. Hebe, 633 F. App’x 567, 569 (3d Cir. 2015) (“Public
defenders are generally not considered state actors for

§ 1983 purposes when acting in their

capacities as attorneys.”) (quotingfolk Cry. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981)); Jackson v. City

ofErie Police Dep ‘t,

570 F. App’x 112, 113 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[P]rivate defense attorney cannot be

construed as a person acting under the ‘color of state law’ within the meaning of

Polk Cty.,

454

U.S.

at

317-25); Bullock v. Sloane Toyota, Inc., 415

2011) (private attorney not liable under

§

§

1983”) (citing

F. App’x 386, 389 (3d Cir.

1983 because plaintiff has not set forth any facts to

demonstrate that her attorney was a state actor or acted under color of state law). Accordingly, the
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and is dismissed without
prejudice.

Date:

A—2Claire

2

C.

Cecchi,

U.$.D.J.