Hagins v. Spina , 267 F. App'x 118 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-7-2008
Hagins v. Spina
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3166
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Hagins v. Spina" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1470.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1470
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-142 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3166
___________
SEAN L. HAGINS,
Appellant
v.
FRANK SPINA II, Frank Spina II
Attorney being sued in his individual and official capacity
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-01625)
District Judge: Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 28, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
(Filed: March 7, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Sean L. Hagins, an inmate at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, appeals
from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, we will dismiss
Hagins’s appeal.
On January 16, 2007, Hagins, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint,
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the District Court. In the complaint, Hagins alleged that he
had retained Frank Spina, an attorney, to represent him in a criminal case for a fee of
$5,000. Spina, however, according to Hagins, quit the case after Hagins’s initial
appearance in court. Due to this turn of events, Hagins sought a return of $4,000 of his
initial payment to Spina. Spina filed a motion to dismiss the case which the District Court
granted on July 2, 2007. The District Court held that Hagins had failed to state a claim,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), against Spina because Spina’s
representation of Hagins did not constitute an act under color of state law. Moreover, the
District Court noted that even if Hagins’s complaint were construed as raising an issue of
Pennsylvania law, it failed to meet the necessary threshold amount in controversy
requirement to invoke the District Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
This timely appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “In reviewing the grant of a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, we apply the same standard as did the
district court, accepting the allegations of the complaint as true and construing those
allegations, in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. [] This standard does not vary where
the action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Dykes v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 68
2
F.3d 1564, 1566 n.1 (3d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). An appellant may prosecute his
appeal without prepayment of the fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), but we must dismiss
the appeal if we determine that it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
We agree with the District Court’s analysis. A viable § 1983 claim must be based
on a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Further, “[t]o make
a prima facie case under § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a person acting under
color of law deprived him of a federal right.” Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d
261, 268 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir.
1995)). Under the circumstances related by his complaint, Hagins cannot show the
deprivation of a constitutional right through state action. As the District Court noted,
Spina’s representation of Hagins does not render Spina a “person acting under color of
state law” under § 1983. See Polk v. County of Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (a
private attorney, even if appointed and paid for by the state, is not acting under color of
state law when performing his function as counsel). Further, Spina’s actions denied
Hagins the benefit of no identifiable constitutional right.
Given our preceding discussion, we agree with the District Court that there was no
need to provide Hagins an opportunity to further amend his complaint because any such
amendment would have proved futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting that amendment “must be permitted . . . unless it would
3
be inequitable or futile”); see also Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115-16 (3d Cir. 2000).
The complaint is devoid of any facts from which one could infer a violation of § 1983,
and we cannot conceive of any viable federal claim that Hagins could possibly have
brought.
Because Hagins failed to make sufficient allegations to establish a violation of
federal law, his appeal lacks arguable legal merit. Accordingly, it will be dismissed under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
4