Valerio-Mendez v. Yeager

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM re 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Ruben Valerio-Mendez, 1 Complaint filed by Ruben Valerio-Mendez (order to follow)Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 3/4/13. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RUBEN VALERIO-MENDEZ,
Plaintiff

:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-0453

v.

:
(JUDGE MANNION)

JOSEPH J. YEAGER, ESQ.,
Defendant

:
:

MEMORANDUM
On February 20, 2013, the plaintiff, an inmate at the State Correctional
Institution, Dallas, Pennsylvania, filed the instant civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. No. 1). In addition, the plaintiff filed a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), and a prisoner authorization form,
(Doc. No. 3). A financial administrative order was issued directing the
Superintendent/Warden at SCI-Dallas to deduct the applicable filing fee for
the instant action from the plaintiff’s inmate account. (Doc. No. 6). As the
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court accordingly is giving his
complaint preliminary consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)1. In
giving the plaintiff’s complaint preliminary consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B), the court will enter an order dismissing the action.
1

Section 1915(e)(2)(B) mandates that a district court dismiss a case by
a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis “if the court determines that . . . the
action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief.”

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he retained defendant Yeager,
a private attorney, to defend him in a criminal matter. The plaintiff alleges that
defendant Yeager failed to provide him with the services for which he paid. As
a result, the plaintiff alleges that he was denied his constitutional rights. The
plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages.
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the plaintiff must show
that defendant Yeager acted under the color of state law and denied him a
federally protected constitutional or statutory right. See Lugar v. Edmondson
Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 930 (1982); Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien &
Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1264 (3d Cir.1994). Because the plaintiff has sued a
private individual for actions taken in his role as an attorney, he must point to
some action that is “fairly attributable” to the state. Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937.
To do this, the plaintiff must show: (1) that defendant Yeager’s acts were “the
exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct
imposed by the state or by a person for whom the State is responsible” and
(2) that defendant Yeager may fairly be said to be a state actor. Id.
A person may be found to be a state actor when: (1) he is a state
official, (2) “he has acted together with or has obtained significant aid from
state officials,” or (3) his conduct, is by its nature, chargeable to the state. Id.
at 937. The Supreme Court noted that “[w]ithout a limit such as this, private
parties could face constitutional litigation whenever they seek to rely on some
state rule governing their interactions with the community surrounding them.”
2

Id. at 937.
Attorneys performing their traditional functions will not be considered
state actors solely on the basis of their position as officers of the court. See,
e.g., Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 (1981) (“[A] lawyer
representing a client is not, by virtue of being an officer of the court, a state
actor ‘under color of state law’ within the meaning of §1983.); Barnard v.
Young, 720 F.2d 1188, 1189 (10th Cir.1983) (“[P]rivate attorneys, by virtue of
being officers of the court, do not act under color of state law within the
meaning of §1983.”).
Here, because defendant Yeager is a private attorney and not acting
under color of state law within the meaning of §1983, the plaintiff’s complaint
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Further, because defendant Yeager does not act under color of state law, the
court finds that it would be futile to allow the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint.
On the basis of the foregoing, an appropriate order shall issue.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: March 4, 2013
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\2013 MEMORANDA\13-0453-01.wpd

3