Walker v. Rensch et al
ORDER Dismissing Case. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 11/2/15. (SB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE
TIMOTHY J. RENSCH and RENSCH
On May 6, 2015, plaintiff Clayton Walker filed a complaint against
defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket 1). Mr. Walker moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and provided the court with his financial
information. (Docket 3).
A federal court may authorize the commencement of suit without
prepayment of fees when an applicant files an affidavit stating he is unable to pay
the costs of the lawsuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Determining whether an applicant
is sufficiently impoverished to qualify to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915
is committed to the court’s discretion. Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d
1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983). “[I]n forma pauperis status does not require a
litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution.” Lee v. McDonald’s Corp., 231
F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000). The court finds Mr. Walker is indigent and grants
his motion to file in forma pauperis.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may dismiss a case sua sponte. “[T]he
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the
action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted . . . .”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court finds Mr. Walker’s complaint fails to
state a claim.
Mr. Walker claims his attorney, defendant Timothy Rensch, violated his
constitutional rights. In his complaint, Mr. Walker alleges Mr. Rensch was
contracted by Hughes County, South Dakota, to represent him. (Docket 1 at
¶ 4). Mr. Walker alleges Mr. Rensch threatened him and failed to provide him
with legal representation. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8. Mr. Walker claims Mr. Rensch
violated his civil rights as secured by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the
United States Constitution. Id. at ¶ 22. Mr. Walker claims emotional pain and
mental anguish, id. at ¶ 21, and damages totaling “not less than 100,000.00.”
Id. at ¶ 23.
Mr. Walker’s complaint fails to state a claim. Mr. Walker brings his claim
under § 1983, “which ‘imposes liability for certain actions taken under color of
law that deprive a person of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States.’ ” Magee v. Trustees of Hamline Univ., Minn., 747 F.3d 532, 535
(8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Dossett v. First State Bank, 399 F.3d 940, 947 (8th Cir.
2005)) (some internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘[A] public employee acts
under color of law when he exercise[s] power possessed by virtue of state law and
made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state
law.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Phillips, 664 F.3d 232, 239-40 (8th Cir. 2011))
(some internal quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Walker names a private law firm and attorney as defendants. The law
firm did not act under color of law. Liberally construed, Mr. Walker alleges
Mr. Rensch was a state actor because Hughes County contracted him to defend
Mr. Walker. “The conduct of counsel, either retained or appointed, in
representing clients, does not constitute action under color of state law for
purposes of section 1983 violations.” Holbird v. Armstrong-Wright, 949 F.2d
1019, 1020 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing Harkins v. Eldredge, 505 F.2d 802, 803
(8th Cir. 1974) (per curiam); Eling v. Jones, 797 F.2d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 1986),
cert. denied, 480 U.S. 917 (1987)). Mr. Walker’s allegations against Mr. Rensch
are not cognizable under § 1983. Therefore, Mr. Walker fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Walker’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket 3) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
Mr. Walker’s complaint (Docket 1) is dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Dated November 2, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
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?