Williams v. Shaughnessy

Full title: TYRONE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL P. SHAUGHNESSY, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Date published: Apr 21, 2014

CASE NO. 1:13 CV 2693 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2014)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:13 CV 2693

04-21-2014

TYRONE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL P. SHAUGHNESSY, Defendant.

DONALD C. NUGENT

JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

On December 6, 2013, plaintiff pro se Tyrone Williams filed this in forma pauperis action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Attorney Michael P. Shaughnessy. The complaint alleges that Mr. Shaughnessy was appointed to represent plaintiff in a criminal proceeding in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff asserts defendant has provided inadequate representation.

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), the district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.¹ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6^th Cir. 2010).

1 An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 915 (6

A criminal defense attorney who acts in that capacity on behalf of a criminal defendant does not act under color of state law for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981); Deas v. Potts, 547 F.2d 800 (4th Cir. 1976). Further, to the extent plaintiff seeks to challenge the validity of a criminal conviction and resulting confinement in a penal institution, he must seek relief in habeas corpus." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 501 (1973)

Accordingly, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The dismissal is without prejudice to any valid state law claim plaintiff may have under the facts alleged. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

DONALD C. NUGENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

th Cir. 2007); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986).