From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parker v. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Jul 7, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:11-cv-00808-BAJ-SCR (M.D. La. Jul. 7, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:11-cv-00808-BAJ-SCR

07-07-2014

PATRICK C. PARKER (#385992) v. BENJAMIN JOHNSON, ET AL.


RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's pro se COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge has issued a REPORT (Doc. 16) recommending that "[Plaintiff's] action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and without leave to amend because there is no conceivable, nonfrivolous federal claim he could assert consistent with the facts alleged in his complaint which is not barred by [Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, (1994)]," (id. at p. 5). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report. (Doc. 22).

Previously, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and the recommendations contained therein, and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint, noting that Plaintiff had failed to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report. (Doc. 18). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report, and asserting that he did indeed file timely objections through the Louisiana State Penitentiary's legal mail system. (See Doc. 20 at p. 1). Accepting as true Plaintiff's claim that he filed his objections in due course, the Court granted Plaintiff's request for relief from judgment, vacated its previous Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report, and ordered the Clerk of Court to docket Plaintiff's objections as timely filed. (See Doc. 21 at p. 3).

Having carefully considered Plaintiff's COMPLAINT (Doc. 1) and related filings—including Plaintiff's objections—the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's REPORT (Doc. 16) and ADOPTS it as the Court's opinion in this matter. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the Magistrate Judge's Report (Doc. 16),

Among other things, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that he is not entitled to relief on his claim for legal malpractice under § 1983. (Doc. 22 at p. 2). Plaintiff asserts that "[court-appointed] lawyers can be sued [for malpractice] through § 1983 according to [Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) and Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193, 205 (1979)]." (Id.). Plaintiff's interpretation of Dodson and Ferri is mistaken. In Dodson, the Supreme Court squarely held 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." Dodson, 454 U.S. at 325 (emphasis added). In Ferri, the Supreme Court determined that "federal law does not. . . provide immunity for court-appointed counsel in a state malpractice suit brought by his former client." Ferri, 444 U.S. at 205 (emphasis added). Accordingly, if Plaintiff is to obtain the relief he seeks for legal malpractice by his court-appointed lawyer, he must pursue his claim in Louisiana state court. Similarly, if Plaintiff is to prevail on his allegations that the Defendants conspired to deny him a fair trial, he must first pursue relief from conviction and confinement through habeas corpus proceedings. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) ("[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983." (emphasis added)).
--------

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's § 1983 COMPLAINT (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 7th day of July, 2014.

__________

BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA


Summaries of

Parker v. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Jul 7, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:11-cv-00808-BAJ-SCR (M.D. La. Jul. 7, 2014)
Case details for

Parker v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK C. PARKER (#385992) v. BENJAMIN JOHNSON, ET AL.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Jul 7, 2014

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:11-cv-00808-BAJ-SCR (M.D. La. Jul. 7, 2014)