Dushon HAMPTON v. Jonathan EPSTEIN David W. Wright
Summary of the case Dushon HAMPTON v. Jonathan EPSTEIN David W. Wright
Dushon Hampton, a Michigan resident, appealed the dismissal of his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two private attorneys, claiming ineffective assistance and failure to protect his civil rights. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, noting that attorneys are not state actors under § 1983. Hampton's motion for reconsideration was also dismissed. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, finding no bias from the district judge and confirming that Hampton failed to state a valid civil rights claim.
Key Issues of the case Dushon HAMPTON v. Jonathan EPSTEIN David W. Wright
- Frivolous complaint dismissal
- State actor requirement under § 1983
Key Facts of the case Dushon HAMPTON v. Jonathan EPSTEIN David W. Wright
- Hampton sued two private attorneys under § 1983
- District court dismissed the complaint as frivolous
Decision of the case Dushon HAMPTON v. Jonathan EPSTEIN David W. Wright
Affirmed the district court’s order
Impact of the case Dushon HAMPTON v. Jonathan EPSTEIN David W. Wright
Clarifies that private attorneys are not state actors under § 1983
Opinions
ORDER
Dushon Hampton, a pro se Michigan resident, appeals a district court order dismissing his civil action construed as being filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary relief, Hampton sued two private attorneys contending that they rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and failed “as my counsel to protect my civil rights from incompetent Judges and underhanded prosecutors who abused their power to coerce a guilty plea.” The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous. The district court subsequently dismissed Hampton’s timely motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Hampton asserts that the district judge was prejudiced in concluding that his complaint was frivolous. He also argues the merits of his complaint.
The district court’s order is reviewed de novo. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997).
The district court properly dismissed the complaint as frivolous. Neither of Hampton’s attorneys are subject to suit under § 1983. A lawyer representing a client is not, by virtue of being an officer of the court, a state actor under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). Therefore, Hampton failed to state a § 1983 claim against his former attorneys.
Hampton contends that the district court’s decision establishes bias. However, a review of the record shows that the district judge was not biased. Hampton simply failed to state a civil rights action against his attorneys.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.