Tiedemann v. Corum
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Dismissal Order-IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, under 28 U.S.C.S. 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Signed by Judge David Sam on 5/2/12. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
EDGAR TIEDEMANN,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
DISMISSAL ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:11-CV-668 DS
PATRICK CORUM,
District Judge David Sam
Defendant.
Plaintiff, Edgar Tiedemann, an inmate at Utah State Prison
filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983
(2012), proceeding in forma pauperis.
See 28 id. § 1915.
complaint is now before the Court for screening.
His
See id. §
1915(e).
Screening Analysis
A. Standard of Review
This Court shall dismiss any claims in a complaint filed in
forma pauperis if they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
against an immune defendant.
See id. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
"Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is
proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail
on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an
opportunity to amend."
Perkins v. Kan. Dep't of Corrs., 165 F.3d
803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999).
When reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint the Court "presumes all of plaintiff's factual
allegations are true and construes them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff."
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se the Court must
construe his pleadings "liberally" and hold them "to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Id. at 1110.
However, "[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff’s
complaint does not relieve [him] of the burden of alleging
sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be
based."
Id.
While Plaintiff need not describe every fact in
specific detail, "conclusory allegations without supporting
factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which
relief can be based."
Id.
B. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges what appear to be ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claims against Patrick Corum, his public
defender in his long-ago state criminal case.
2
C. Improper Defendant
To establish a cause of action under § 1983, Plaintiff must
allege (1) the deprivation of a federal right by (2) a person
acting under color of state law (without immunity).
Gomez v.
Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); Watson v. City of Kansas City,
857 F.2d 690, 694 (10th Cir. 1988).
The Complaint names Defendant based on his role as
Plaintiff's public defender.
"However, the Supreme Court has
stated 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.'"
Garza v. Bandy, No.
08-3152, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17440, at *4 (10th Cir. Aug. 13,
2008) (unpublished) (quoting Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,
325 (1981)).
Additionally, "'even though the defective
performance of defense counsel may cause the trial process to
deprive an accused person of his liberty in an unconstitutional
manner, the lawyer who may be responsible for the
unconstitutional state action does not himself act under color of
state law within the meaning of § 1983.'"
Id. (quoting Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329 n. 6 (1983)).
Thus, Plaintiff's
claims against Defendant may not proceed here.
3
D. Heck
"In Heck, the Supreme Court explained that a § 1983 action
that would impugn the validity of a plaintiff's underlying
conviction cannot be maintained unless the conviction has been
reversed on direct appeal or impaired by collateral proceedings."
Nichols v. Baer, No. 08-4158, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4302, at *4
(10th Cir. Mar. 5, 2009) (unpublished) (citing Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)).
Heck prevents litigants "from
using a § 1983 action, with its more lenient pleading rules, to
challenge their conviction or sentence without complying with the
more stringent exhaustion requirements for habeas actions."
Butler v. Compton, 482 F.3d 1277, 1279 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted).
Heck clarifies that "civil tort actions are not
appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding
criminal judgments."
512 U.S. at 486.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant violated his constitutional
rights at trial.
These arguments attack Plaintiff's underlying
conviction and sentence.
Heck requires that, when a plaintiff
requests damages in a § 1983 suit, this Court must decide whether
judgment in the plaintiff's favor would unavoidably imply that
the conviction or sentence is invalid.
would.
Id. at 487.
Here, it
If this Court were to conclude that Plaintiff's
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was
4
violated in a prejudicial manner, it would be stating that
Plaintiff's conviction and sentence were not valid.
Thus, this complaint "must be dismissed unless the plaintiff
can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated."
Id.
This has not happened.
The Court must thus
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.
Finally, Plaintiff's request to have his conviction
invalidated may be properly raised only in a habeas corpus
petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED
with prejudice, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012), for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
neither liberal interpretation of Plaintiff's claims nor
opportunity to amend would lead to a different result.
DATED this 2nd day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
DAVID SAM
United States District Judge
5
And,
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?