Opinion
Case No. 2:13-CV-1129
02-10-2014
AARON D. YOUNKER, Plaintiff, v. JERRY MCHENRY, Defendant.
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge's November 14, 2013 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) and Plaintiff's Objections thereto (ECF No. 5). For the reasons that follow, the Court OVERRULES the Objections, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Aaron Younker asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant McHenry, a public defender who represented Plaintiff in a criminal proceeding in 2007. In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant provided ineffective counsel, as evidenced by his failure to take depositions and obtain affidavits from witnesses, among other things. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and an affidavit in support thereof.
The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Magistrate Judge conducted an initial screening of Plaintiff's complaint and, in a Report and Recommendation dated November 14, 2013 ("R&R"), recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff timely objected to the R&R. (ECF No. 5.) The Court now considers those objections.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
If a party objects within the allotted time to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
As the Magistrate Judge correctly explained, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) requires sua sponte dismissal of an in forma pauperis proceeding upon the Court's determination that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Courts conducting initial screens under § 1915(e) apply the same standard that courts employ when deciding a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and determine whether the plaintiff plausibly states a claim under which the court can grant relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
B. Analysis of the R&R
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. Noting that Plaintiff cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for his claims, the Magistrate Judge found that, taking Plaintiff's allegations as true, Defendant did not act "under color of state law." The Magistrate Judge cited Polk County v. Dodson as standing for the proposition 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." 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); see also Floyd v. Cty. of Kent, 454 F. App'x 493, 497 (6th Cir. 2012) ("Defense attorneys, whether compensated by the State or retained by a client, do not act under color of state law when they perform a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to the accused in a criminal proceeding"). The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff could not state a § 1983 claim against Defendant (his former attorney) because he could not meet § 1983's "under color of state law" requirement.
Plaintiff objects to this conclusion on the ground that Defendant is a state employee. But the case law is clear that a public defender, even though technically an employee of the state, does not act under color of state law when he or she represents a defendant in a criminal case. Polk Cty., 454 U.S. at 321-26. As such, Plaintiff's objection is without merit.
Finding that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for relief, the Court need not address the alternative grounds on which the Magistrate Judge based his R&R. No modification to the R&R is warranted.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 5), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3), and DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 2). The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate this case from the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, at Columbus.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE