Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv—O0102-SLR Document 8 Filed O4/19/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JANIAR WARREN, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civil Action No. 07-102-SLR
LAWRENCE M. SULLIVAN and g
BRADLEY V. NIANNING, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this \"·*"day of April, 2007, having screened the case pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §1915A;
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §
1915A, for the reasons that follow;
1. Background. Plaintiff Jamar Warren, an inmate at the Howard R. Young
Correctional Institution ("HRYCI"), tiled this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Standard of Review. When a Iitigant proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 provides for dismissal under certain circumstances. When a prisoner seeks
redress from a government defendant in a civil action, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides for
screening ofthe complaint by the court. Both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and §
1915A(b)(1) provide that the court may dismiss a complaint, at any time, if the action is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks

Case 1:07-cv—00102-SLR Document 8 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it
"lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989).
3. The court must "accept as true factual allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom." Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65
(3d Cir. 1996)(citing Holder v. City of Allentown, 987 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Additionally, pro se complaints are held to "Iess stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by Iawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim when
"it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim which would entitle him to relief."' Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521
(1972)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
4. Discussion. Plaintiff filed this action against Delaware Public Defender
Lawrence Sullivan ("SuIlivan") and assistant public defender Bradley V. Manning
("Manning"). Although not stated, plaintiff apparently is represented by an assistant
public defender in criminal proceedings. Plaintiff complains that the public defender
does not communicate with him, does not inform him of the status or subject matter of
the case, sees him only at court, and fails to respond to plaintiffs communications.
5. The two defendants are attorneys in the Delaware Public Defender’s office.
When bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him
of a federal right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of
state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682, 685
(3d Cir.1993).
2

Case 1:07-cv—O0102-SLB Document 8 Filed O4/19/2007 Page 3 of 3
6. Public defenders do not act under color of state law when performing a
lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in criminal proceedings. Q
County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981); Harmon v. Delaware Secretary of State, 154
Fed. Appx. 283, 284-85 (3d Cir. 2005). Because public defenders are not considered
state actors, plaintiffs claim fails under § 1983.
7. Conclusion. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the complaint is dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). Amendment of the complaint would be futile. @2;
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City of
Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d. Cir. 1976). Plaintiffs motion to amend complaint
(D.I. 11) is denied as moot. Plaintiff is not required to pay any previously assessed fees
or the $350.00 tiling fee. The clerk of the court is directed to send a copy of this order to
the appropriate prison business office.

3