DeAngelo v. Brady

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-19-2006
DeAngelo v. Brady
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-5325
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"DeAngelo v. Brady" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 878.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/878
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5325
________________
JAMES CHRISTOPHER DEANGELO,
Appellant
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL M. JANE BRADY;
CYNTHIA R. KELSEY, Deputy Attorney General;
SUPERIOR CT JUDGE RICHARD R. COOCH;
DANIEL R. MILLER, Deputy Attorney General;
KEVIN J. O'CONNELL; JOHN J. DUFFY;
PATRICK J. REDMOND
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00254)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
Before: BARRY, SMITH AND NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: June 19, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
James Christopher DeAngelo, pro se, appeals an order of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware dismissing his civil rights Complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
DeAngelo filed a civil rights complaint claiming that the Attorney General and his
Deputies abused process and maliciously prosecuted him in order to obtain a conviction
on a weapons offense that was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. He alleges
that the trial judge violated his due process and equal protection rights by allowing the
time-barred prosecution to proceed. He asserted that defense counsel conspired with the
Attorney General, his deputies, and the trial judge to convict him of the time-barred
weapons offense. He sought damages.
The District Court dismissed the complaint sua sponte as frivolous. The District
Court held that the Attorney General and Deputy Attorneys General were absolutely
immune from suit for monetary damages because their alleged actions were within the
scope of the function of “initiating a prosecution and presenting the State’s case” under
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). The District Court determined that trial
Judge Cooch enjoyed absolute judicial immunity from suit because none of the
allegations indicated that the judge acted outside the scope of his judicial authority or in
the absence of all jurisdiction. As for the allegations against criminal defense counsel, the
District Court ruled that these defendants were not “state actors” for § 1983 purposes
under Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317 n. 4 (1991) (holding that a public
defender is not a state actor for § 1983 purposes “when performing the traditional
functions of counsel to a criminal defendant”). Thus, defendants were not liable under §
2
1983. DeAngelo timely appealed.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. DeAngelo has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We must accept as true the factual
allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them.
Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996). As discussed further below, we will
dismiss this appeal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220,
223 (3d Cir. 2000).
We find that DeAngelo’s complaint failed to state a claim substantially for the
same reasons set forth in the District Court’s Opinion.1 State action is a prerequisite to
liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “[T]he deprivation must be caused by the exercise of
some right or privilege created by the State . . . or by a person who may fairly be said to
be a state actor.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982). This
requirement means that the defendant must have exercised power “possessed by virtue of
state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state
law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299
(1941)). It is well established that defense attorneys, no matter whether they are privately
retained, court-appointed, or employed as public defenders, do not act under color of state
law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 (1981). Here, as in Polk County, the
allegations pertain to defense counsel’s performance of traditional attorney functions vis-
1
We agree with the District Court’s reasoning and conclusion with respect to
absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity and will not discuss it further.
3
a-vis DeAngelo as a criminal defendant, and thus, the defendants are not “state actors” for
§ 1983 purposes.
DeAngelo also alleged a conspiracy among defense counsel, the judge, and the
Attorney General and his Deputies. Defense counsel could be liable under § 1983 if they
conspired with state officials to deprive Deangelo of his constitutional rights. See Tower
v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914 (1984). However, “[i]t is a longstanding rule in the Third Circuit
that a mere general allegation . . . or averment of conspiracy or collusion without alleging
the facts which constituted such conspiracy or collusion is a conclusion of law and is
insufficient [to state a claim].” Young v. Kann, 926 F.2d 1396, 1405 n. 16 (3d. Cir.
1991). Here, we conclude that the allegations in the complaint and all reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom fail to state a conspiracy claim. Notably, DeAngelo’s
conspiracy claims lack supporting allegations of an agreement among defense counsel,
the judge, and the Attorney General and his Deputies, as well as the basis for alleging
participation with regard to each individual. Nor can we reasonably infer from the
allegations that the defendants had the requisite intent to deprive DeAngelo of a
constitutional right.
DeAngelo’s complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under § 1983. This Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis appeal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) where none of the legal points is arguable on its merits. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). DeAngelo has no arguable legal basis
upon which to appeal the District Court’s order. His appeal, therefore, will be dismissed
4
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The State Appellees’ motion for summary
affirmance and the Appellant’s motion for stay of the briefing schedule are denied as
moot.
5