Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-854
01-09-2017
ANDRE DEMETRIC PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES W. LAHEY, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the complaint filed by Andre Demetric Payne, a pro se prisoner, on December 15, 2016. "A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Payne alleges that his State court criminal defense attorney violated the Sixth Amendment by not introducing the interview statement of his co-defendant to prove that he acted in self-defense. "In order to state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law." Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). A criminal defense attorney, even an appointed public defender, does not act under color of state law. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981). Therefore Payne has not stated a federal law claim under § 1983.
Though it is usually necessary "to give pro se litigants one opportunity to amend after dismissing a complaint[,] that's unnecessary where, as here, it is certain from the face of the complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted." Carpenter v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass'n, No. 633 Fed. Appx. 346, 348 (7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016) (quotation marks omitted). See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013) and Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) ("[C]ourts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the amendment would be futile.").
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it does not state a claim. DATED: January 9, 2017
/s/ RUDY LOZANO , Judge
United States District Court