From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steward v. Meeker

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
May 2, 1972
459 F.2d 669 (3d Cir. 1972)

Summary

holding that private counsel does not act under color of state law

Summary of this case from Howell v. Young

Opinion

No. 71-1660.

Submitted April 17, 1972.

Decided May 2, 1972.

John Steward, pro se.

Frank W. Cerutti, De Servo, Cerutti, Lombardi Fitzpatrick, Jersey City, N. J., for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Before ADAMS, GIBBONS, and MAX ROSENN, Circuit Judges.


OPINION OF THE COURT


In this action brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, the plaintiff, John Steward, sues David Meeker, the attorney who represented him in 1969 when Mr. Steward was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, several violations of New Jersey law. The district court granted Mr. Meeker's motion for summary judgment, and Mr. Steward has appealed.

Summary judgment was properly granted because the allegations of plaintiff's complaint, if true, could not meet the jurisdictional requirements of either section 1983 or section 1985.

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory . . ." deprives another of his civil rights. Although an attorney is an officer of the court, as privately retained counsel, Mr. Meeker owed an absolute duty of loyalty to his client, N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-11. Consequently, Mr. Meeker was acting as a private person in his representation of Mr. Steward, and was not acting under color of law within the meaning of section 1983. Thomas v. Howard, 455 F.2d 228 (3d Cir. 1972).

Section 1985 deals solely with conspiracies to interfere with civil rights, and specifically refers to the situation where "two or more persons . . conspire." Mr. Steward alleges wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Meeker alone.

Because the allegations of the complaint failed to meet the requirements of either section of the Civil Rights Act under which the suit was filed, the judgment of the district court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment will be affirmed.


Summaries of

Steward v. Meeker

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
May 2, 1972
459 F.2d 669 (3d Cir. 1972)

holding that private counsel does not act under color of state law

Summary of this case from Howell v. Young

holding that privately-retained counsel not acting under color of state law when representing client

Summary of this case from Brown v. Wayne Cnty.

holding that privately-retained counsel not acting under color of state law when representing client

Summary of this case from Nieves v. Pennsylvania

holding that privately retained attorney does not act under color of state law by representing a client as is required to state a claim under Section 1983

Summary of this case from Grezak v. Firm

holding that while a private attorney acting in her client's interests is "an officer of the court," her requirement of loyalty to her client means that she is "not acting under color of law within the meaning of section 1983."

Summary of this case from Maresca v. Maresca

finding that privately-retained counsel does not act under color of state law when representing client

Summary of this case from Campusano-Tejeda v. Savitz
Case details for

Steward v. Meeker

Case Details

Full title:JOHN STEWARD, APPELLANT, v. DAVID J. MEEKER

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: May 2, 1972

Citations

459 F.2d 669 (3d Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

Kovacs v. Goodman

The acts alleged to give rise to this suit were performed in connection with defendants' representation of a…

Willis v. Bruno

To the contrary, courts have uniformly held an attorney, whether appointed or retained, whether in state…