Lawson v. Curn, No. 7:2022cv00069 - Document 7 (W.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 3/14/2022. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lawson v. Curn Case 7:22-cv-00069-TTC-RSB Document 7 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 39 Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION ROGER D. LAWSON, Plaintiff, v. LARRY CURN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 7:22cv00069 MEMORANDUM OPINION By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen United States District Judge Plaintiff Roger D. Lawson, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against his criminal defense attorney. Lawson seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this action. Having reviewed Lawson’s complaint, the court grants his request to proceed in forma pauperis but concludes that Lawson fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim against the defendant. Therefore, the court will dismiss Lawson’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Lawson alleges that his court-appointed attorney “let them charge [Lawson] with the wrong s[ocial] s[ecurity] n[umber].” (Compl. ¶ E [ECF No. 1].) As relief, Lawson seeks “[his] time.” (Id. ¶ F.) To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). An attorney who defends a person against a criminal charge, whether retained or court-appointed, does not act under color of state law in his or her representation of that person. See Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317–24 (1981) (“A Dockets.Justia.com Case 7:22-cv-00069-TTC-RSB Document 7 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 40 lawyer representing a client is not, by virtue of being an officer of the court, a state actor ‘under color of state law’ within the meaning of § 1983.”); Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154, 1155–56 & nn. 2–3 (4th Cir. 1980) (court-appointed attorney); Deas v. Potts, 547 F.2d 800 (4th Cir. 1976) (private attorney). Accordingly, Lawson cannot pursue this § 1983 action against his defense attorney and the court will dismiss Lawson’s complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order to Lawson. ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2022. /s/ Thomas T. Cullen_________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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.
