Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Leslie Wayne Smith v. Robert Laughlin, Canon Stevens, Robert Jacobs, Acting in Their Individual Capacities, 5 F.3d 547, 10th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirming the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, had sued his public defenders alleging they conspired to wrongfully obtain his conviction and uphold it on appeal. The appeals court upheld the dismissal, finding that public defenders do not act under color of state law and therefore the plaintiff failed to state a valid civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiff's request for rehearing and motion to present exhibits were also denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Leslie Wayne Smith v. Robert Laughlin, Canon Stevens, Robert Jacobs, Acting in Their Individual Capacities, 5 F.3d 547, 10th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views2 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirming the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, had sued his public defenders alleging they conspired to wrongfully obtain his conviction and uphold it on appeal. The appeals court upheld the dismissal, finding that public defenders do not act under color of state law and therefore the plaintiff failed to state a valid civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiff's request for rehearing and motion to present exhibits were also denied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-08-20 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 5 F.3d 547 Docket: 92-2278

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirming the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, had sued his public defenders alleging they conspired to wrongfully obtain his conviction and uphold it on appeal. The appeals court upheld the dismissal, finding that public defenders do not act under color of state law and therefore the plaintiff failed to state a valid civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiff's request for rehearing and motion to present exhibits were also denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    19 views2 pages

    Leslie Wayne Smith v. Robert Laughlin, Canon Stevens, Robert Jacobs, Acting in Their Individual Capacities, 5 F.3d 547, 10th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirming the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, had sued his public defenders alleging they conspired to wrongfully obtain his conviction and uphold it on appeal. The appeals court upheld the dismissal, finding that public defenders do not act under color of state law and therefore the plaintiff failed to state a valid civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiff's request for rehearing and motion to present exhibits were also denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    5 F.

    3d 547
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    Leslie Wayne SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    Robert LAUGHLIN, Canon Stevens, Robert Jacobs, acting in
    their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 92-2278.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    Aug. 20, 1993.

    Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    1

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
    of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Plaintiff appeals the district court's decision dismissing his civil rights action
    pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We review such a decision de novo,
    accepting plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construing
    those allegations in the light most favorable to him. See Williams v. Meese, 926
    F.2d 994, 997 (10th Cir.1991). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate
    only if it appears that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims
    that would entitle him to relief. Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs, Co. v. City of
    Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir.1991). We shall not express any
    opinion on any matter other than the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's
    action based on Rule 12(b)(6).

    Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asserted three causes of action under 42


    U.S.C.1983, alleging, in essence, that defendants, New Mexico public
    defenders who represented plaintiff in a state criminal proceeding, had deprived
    him of federally protected rights by conspiring to obtain his conviction and to
    have that conviction affirmed on appeal. In order to state a valid 1983 cause of
    action, a plaintiff must allege the deprivation of a right guaranteed by the
    Constitution and the laws of the United States and that the defendants deprived
    him of that right under color of state law, custom, or policy. Adickes v. S.H.
    Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970). Because appointed counsel in a state
    criminal prosecution does not act under color of state law in the normal course
    of conducting a defense, Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 (1984) (citing
    Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)), plaintiff's complaint did fail to
    state any valid 1983 claims.

    The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New
    Mexico is, therefore, AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without
    prejudice. Plaintiff's request for in banc consideration of this appeal and his
    motion to present exhibits to this court are DENIED.

    The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
    used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
    the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
    Cir.R. 36.3

    You might also like