Unpublished Disposition, 925 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseJames C. STANDLEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Robert C. BILLAR, Maricopa County Public Defender, et al.,Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-15243.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 4, 1991.* Decided Feb. 6, 1991.
Before TANG, SCHROEDER and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
James C. Standlee, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against public defenders, Billar and Rood. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Standlee claims his constitutional rights were violated because Billar and Rood, his trial and appellate counsel, respectively, rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. To state a section 1983 claim, Standlee must allege facts which show a deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution by a person acting under color of state law. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Public defenders are private individuals for purposes of section 1983 and thus do not act under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Moreover, a private attorney, even if appointed and paid for by the state, is not acting under color of state law when performing his functions as counsel. Id. Thus, it is of no matter that Billar was a private attorney appointed to represent Standlee and became employed as a public defender during the criminal proceedings.1
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Standlee's request for injunctive relief is denied because he seeks relief against individuals who are not defendants in this action
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
