Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Victor Frank Szijarto v. Charles F. Legeman
Victor Frank Szijarto v. Charles F. Legeman, 466 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1972)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1972-08-24
- Topic
- general
holding that “an attorney, 19 whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.” | holding that a claim of 14 ineffective assistance of a retained trial attorney was not a cognizable claim under § 1983 because 15 “an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.” | holding that a claim of ineffective assistance of a 15 retained trial attorney was not a cognizable claim under § 1983 because “an attorney, whether 16 retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.” | holding that a claim of 10 ineffective assistance of a retained trial attorney was not a cognizable claim under § 1983 because 11 “an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.” | holding attorney representing criminal defendant, “whether retained or 17 appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | holding attorney 25 representing criminal defendant, “whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | noting that ineffectiveness claims are not cognizable under Section 1983 because “an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law” | holding attorney representing 23 criminal defendant, “whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law” | “[A]n attorney, 22 whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.” | “[A]n attorney, whether 17 retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.” | Attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act 2 “under color of state law” pursuant to § 1983 | attorney representing 28 criminal defendant, “whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law” | Attorney, whether retained or appointed, does 13 not act “under color of state law” pursuant to § 1983 | In 24 regard to section 1983, “an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color 25 of’ state law” | Attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act “under color 22 of state law” pursuant to § 1983 | “[A]n attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of state law.” | “[A]n attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.”
Citator
- Cited by
- 32 opinions
We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s action.
Plaintiff's claim was one for damages, and purportedly rested upon the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983). His allegations in substance were that defendant, an attorney whom plaintiff had retained, failed to render him reasonable assistance during a state criminal trial, to plaintiff’s injury.
But this Circuit, in common with others, has held that such a claim is not within the purview of the Civil Rights Act, the reason being that an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act “under color of” state law. Hence, the claim is not one coming within the jurisdiction of the district court. Dyer v. Rosenberg, 434 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1970); Fletcher v. Hook, 446. F.2d 14 (3rd Cir. 1971); Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231 (6th Cir. 1968); and see French v. Corrigan, 432 F.2d 1211 (7th Cir. 1970).