Carman v. Buckley, No. 1:2016cv02532 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court further certifies,pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 1/5/2017. (D,M)

Download PDF
Carman v. Buckley Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Ronald G. Carman, Plaintiff, v. Joseph D. Buckley, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1: 16 CV 2532 JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Ronald G. Carman, a detainee in the Cuyahoga County Jail, has filed this in forma pauperis civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Defendant Joseph D. Buckley, a public defender appointed to represent the Plaintiff in a criminal case in Cuyahoga County. The Plaintiff contends Mr. Buckley’s representation of him is unwanted, and he seeks $50,000 compensation for Mr. Buckley’s refusal to withdraw and his “continuing unwanted representation causing a delay of speedy trial, and the anxiety of being held in the County Jail by delaying trial.” (Doc. No. 1. at 5.) Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), federal district courts are required 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) to screen in forma pauperis actions, and dismiss before service any such action that the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). The Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). In order to state a viable claim under §1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a right secured by the federal constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting under color of state law. Bomer v. Muechenheim, 75 F. App'x 998, 999 (6th Cir. 2003). “It is firmly established that a defense attorney, regardless of whether he is a public defender or private attorney, is not a state actor for purposes of §1983.” Jordan v. Kentucky, No. 3: 09 CV 424, 2009 WL 2163113, at *4 (6th Cir. July 16, 2009), citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (“[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.”). Conclusion Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not alleged a plausible claim against Mr. Buckley, and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. /S/SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 5, 2017 2

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.