Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Joseph Deas, Jr. v. Attorney Jack Potts

547 F.2d 800

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1976-12-14
Topic: estate-planning

holding that a private attorney retained to represent a criminal defendant did not act under color of state law | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983 | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983” | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983” | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983” | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983 | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983” | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983” | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983” | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983 | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983” | holding that a “private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983 | finding that private attorney does not act under color of state law | finding private attorney does not act under color of state law | finding private attorney does not act under color of state law | finding private attorney does not act under color of state law | finding private attorney does not act under color of state law | “A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law.” | “A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amendable to suit under § 1983” | “A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amendable to suit under § 1983.” | “A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983” | “A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amendable to suit under § 1983.” | “A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under s 1983.” | “A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amendable to suit under § 1983” | “A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983.” | “A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amendable to suit under § 1983” | “A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983.” | “A private att

Citator

Cited by: 44 opinions

DEAS v. POTTS,547 F.2d 800(4th Cir. 1976)

JOSEPH DEAS, JR., APPELLANT, v. ATTORNEY JACK POTTS, APPELLEE.

No. 76-2390.^fn*

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted October 1, 1976.

Decided December 14, 1976.

Joseph Deas, Jr., appellant pro se.

Jack Potts, appellee pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

Before RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and WIDENER, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

[1] Joseph Deas, Jr., seeks to sue under42 U.S.C. § 1983the attorney whom he retained to represent him in a criminal matter. He alleges that his representation operated to deprive him of his constitutionally guaranteed right to the effective assistance of counsel, and, further, that the defendant failed to return $1,000 to Deas after he was discharged. The complaint seeks recovery of this $1,000 as well as additional amounts in compensatory and punitive damages.

[2] A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant isnotacting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983.Nelson v. Stratton,469 F.2d 1155(5th Cir. 1972),cert. denied,410 U.S. 957,93 S.Ct. 1432,35 L.Ed.2d 691(1973);Szijarto v. Legeman,466 F.2d 864(9th Cir. 1972);Shelton v. Randolph,373 F. Supp. 448(W.D.Va. 1974). Deas may — if he so desires — attack his conviction on the basis of ineffective representation of counsel by filing pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 2254a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

[3] Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.Page 801

Formerly 76-8258. ↩