BROOKS v. BARNETT, No. 2:2018cv01522 - Document 8 (D.N.J. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 4/30/2018. (JB, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NORRIS BROOKS, Civil Action No. 18-1522 (CCC) Plaintiff, v. Dockets.Justia.com MEMORANDUM OPINION BROOKE M. BARNETT, ESQ., Defendant. This matter has come before the Court on a civil rights Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff Norris Brooks pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Plaintiff is proceeding informa pauperis, (see ECF No. 7), the Court must screen the Complaint to determine whether the case shall be dismissed because it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(e)(2). Having completed this screening, and for the reasons stated below, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Complaint names a single defendant, Brooke M. Barnett, Esq., Plaintiffs counsel in a prior state criminal matter that is the subject of his lawsuit. However, neither public defenders nor private attorneys are state actors liable under § 1983, because they are not persons acting under the color of law. See Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 91(2009) (“[T]he relationship between a defendant and the public defender representing him is ‘identical to that existing between any other lawyer and client.’ Unlike a prosecutor or the court, assigned counsel ordinarily is not considered a state actor.”) (citation omitted); Rieco v. Hebe, 633 F. App’x 567, 569 (3d Cir. 2015) (“Public defenders are generally not considered state actors for § 1983 purposes when acting in their capacities as attorneys.”) (quotingfolk Cry. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981)); Jackson v. City ofErie Police Dep ‘t, 570 F. App’x 112, 113 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[P]rivate defense attorney cannot be construed as a person acting under the ‘color of state law’ within the meaning of Polk Cty., 454 U.S. at 317-25); Bullock v. Sloane Toyota, Inc., 415 2011) (private attorney not liable under § § 1983”) (citing F. App’x 386, 389 (3d Cir. 1983 because plaintiff has not set forth any facts to demonstrate that her attorney was a state actor or acted under color of state law). Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and is dismissed without prejudice. Date: A—2Claire 2 C. Cecchi, U.$.D.J.

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.