Jackson v. Brummett ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 9, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
TRIGINAL D. JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 08-2307
(D.C. No. 08-CIV-1091-PJK-LFG)
PATI BRUMMETT, New Mexico (D.N.M.)
Public Defender Office; 2 UNNAMED
PUBLIC DEFENDERS,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Proceeding pro se, Triginal Jackson brought this suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, against various state public defenders as well as their employer, the New
Mexico Public Defender’s Office. Mr. Jackson’s complaint alleged that, after he
was charged with felony assault and four other misdemeanors in New Mexico
state court, the public defenders appointed to represent him violated his
*
After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This
order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
constitutional rights by, among other things, continuing to represent him after he
made clear that he wished to represent himself, and by prolonging his
incarceration by requesting an unnecessary competency hearing.
Acting sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the district
court dismissed Mr. Jackson’s federal claims with prejudice, holding that the
allegations in the complaint did not state a plausible claim for relief, and that
granting leave to amend would be futile. To the extent Mr. Jackson’s complaint
raised state law claims, the district court declined to exercise its supplemental
jurisdiction and dismissed them without prejudice. Dist. Ct. Op. at 3.
With respect to the federal claims against the individual public defenders
named in Mr. Jackson’s suit, the district court dismissed the complaint, reasoning
that (a) a § 1983 suit may be brought against only defendants who act under color
of state law, and (b) public defenders performing traditional functions as counsel
to a defendant in a criminal proceeding do not do so. Dist Ct. Op. at 2-3 (citing
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981)). With respect to Mr.
Jackson’s claim against the New Mexico Public Defender Office, the district court
held that the complaint failed to state a claim because (a) it was based on
respondeat superior liability, which is not recognized under § 1983, Dist. Ct. Op.
at 3 (citing Polk County, 454 U.S. at 325), and because (b) the office, an “arm of
the state,” possesses Eleventh Amendment immunity and is not a “person” for
-2-
purposes of § 1983, id. (citing Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 70-71 (1989)).
We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d
1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). “In determining whether dismissal is proper, we
must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe those
allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. (quoting Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d
1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002)). Additionally, because Mr. Jackson is proceeding
pro se, we construe his pleadings and other papers with special solicitude. Van
Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007).
Even with these generous standards in mind, we conclude that Mr.
Jackson’s suit does not state a plausible federal claim for relief for the very same
reasons given by the district court. We also agree with the district court that it
would be futile to grant leave to amend Mr. Jackson’s federal claims. We cannot
conceive of a way in which Mr. Jackson could amend his pleadings to state a
plausible claim for relief under § 1983; neither has Mr. Jackson suggested any
such course to us. Because we find Mr. Jackson’s federal claims were properly
dismissed with prejudice, the district court properly declined to exercise
jurisdiction over Mr. Jackson’s remaining state law claims. See Bauchman ex rel.
Bauchman v. West High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 549 (10th Cir. 1997) (“If federal
claims are dismissed before trial, leaving only issues of state law, the federal
-3-
court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without
prejudice.”) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-4-