Carman v. Buckley

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court further certifies,pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 1/5/2017. (D,M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Ronald G. Carman,
Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph D. Buckley,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1: 16 CV 2532

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Ronald G. Carman, a detainee in the Cuyahoga County Jail, has filed this in
forma pauperis civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Defendant Joseph D. Buckley, a
public defender appointed to represent the Plaintiff in a criminal case in Cuyahoga County. The
Plaintiff contends Mr. Buckley’s representation of him is unwanted, and he seeks $50,000
compensation for Mr. Buckley’s refusal to withdraw and his “continuing unwanted representation
causing a delay of speedy trial, and the anxiety of being held in the County Jail by delaying trial.”
(Doc. No. 1. at 5.)
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam);
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), federal district courts are required 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B) to screen in forma pauperis actions, and dismiss before service any such action that
the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630

F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010).
The Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). In order
to state a viable claim under §1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a right secured
by the federal constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting under color of state law.
Bomer v. Muechenheim, 75 F. App'x 998, 999 (6th Cir. 2003). “It is firmly established that a
defense attorney, regardless of whether he is a public defender or private attorney, is not a state actor
for purposes of §1983.” Jordan v. Kentucky, No. 3: 09 CV 424, 2009 WL 2163113, at *4 (6th Cir.
July 16, 2009), citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (“[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.”).
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not alleged a plausible claim against Mr. Buckley, and this
action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further certifies, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
January 5, 2017

2