Grant v. Paul

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-6-2007
Grant v. Paul
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3864
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Grant v. Paul" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 123.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/123
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-28 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3864
___________
GREGORY T. GRANT,
Appellant
vs.
MICHAEL G. PAUL
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 07-3807)
District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 16, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
( Filed December 6, 2007)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Gregory T. Grant, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Michael G. Paul, Esq., his court-appointed attorney, for ineffective
assistance of counsel during the course of the criminal proceedings against Grant. The
1
District Court dismissed his complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim. For the
reasons provided by the District Court, we agree and will dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
Grant is currently incarcerated at the Central Reception and Assignment
Facility in West Trenton, New Jersey. He alleges that Paul, his court-appointed attorney,
refused to allow him to explain how he had been falsely accused of the charges contained
in the indictment; Paul also allegedly told Grant that he was probably “high on drugs” on
the night of his arrest, that Grant would lose at trial, and that Grant would receive a ten-
year sentence. Paul then allegedly withdrew – without Grant’s permission – Grant’s
“appeal” regarding the withdrawal of his guilty plea. Grant has been appointed new
counsel in state court. Grant alleges that Paul’s conduct violated his Sixth Amendment
right to effective assistance of counsel, and he seeks damages of $1,000 a day for each
day of his continued incarceration.
As the District Court explained, a court-appointed defense attorney is not a
state actor for purposes of a § 1983 action simply “by virtue of being an officer of the
court . . . .” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 (1981). This is because, “[i]n our
system a defense lawyer characteristically opposes the designated representatives of the
State.” Id. Because the complaint contains no allegations to suggest that Paul is a state
actor properly sued under § 1983, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed
Grant’s complaint, and we dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2