Jones v. Evans ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    JUL 13 1999
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    FERMAN JONES,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                               No. 99-6040
    KAREN EVANS,                                         (D.C. No. CIV-98-469-M)
    (W.D. Okla.)
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT           *
    Before ANDERSON, KELLY and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
    After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Plaintiff Ferman Jones, appearing pro se and     in forma pauperis , appeals
    from the district court’s dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     claim against his
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    *
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    former state public defender. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and affirm.
    Jones complains that defendant Karen Evans, in her former role as an
    Oklahoma County public defender, “manufactured claims, forcing [him to be] sent
    to the Vinita State Hospital,” and thereby denied him access to the courts. The
    district court dismissed Jones’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
    relief may be granted because Evans is not a state actor. Potential liability under
    § 1983 attaches only to persons who are acting under color of state law. The
    Supreme Court expressly held in   Polk County v. Dodson , 
    454 U.S. 312
    , 325
    (1981), that “a public defender does not act under color of state law when
    performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal
    proceeding.” Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The
    mandate shall issue forthwith.
    Entered for the Court
    Mary Beck Briscoe
    Circuit Judge
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-6040

Filed Date: 7/13/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021