O'Hara v. Wigginton

• Citation: 24 F.3d 823
• Decision Date: 18 May 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-5737,93-5737
• Parties: William J. O'HARA III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John T. WIGGINTON; Wayne Dunn; Al C. Parke; and Fred Cowan, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

Page 823

24 F.3d 823

William J. O'HARA III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John T. WIGGINTON; Wayne Dunn; Al C. Parke; and Fred

Cowan, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-5737.

United States Court of Appeals,

Sixth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 28, 1994.

Decided May 18, 1994.

Frank A. Wichmann (argued and briefed), Wichmann & Schaffer, Erlanger, KY, for petitioner-appellant.

Connie V. Malone (argued and briefed), Office of Gen. Counsel, Laura Early (argued and briefed), Office of Atty. Gen., Frankfort, KY, for respondents-appellees.

Before: KEITH, RYAN, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.

RYAN, Circuit Judge.

The petitioner, William J. O'Hara III, appeals two orders of the district court dismissing his civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. This appeal presents the following issues: 1) Whether the petitioner's section 1983 claim arose entirely under state law; 2) whether the petitioner's habeas claim that the state failed to treat his mental illness raised a cognizable issue; and 3) whether the district court erred in denying habeas relief based on the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

We conclude that the district court properly dismissed the petitioner's section 1983 claim because that claim sounded solely in state law. In addition, while a claim that the prosecution breached a plea agreement generally is a cognizable habeas claim, the petitioner identified no such breach here. Finally, the record fails to support the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders.

I.

In March 1982, the petitioner was indicted in Boone County, Kentucky, Circuit Court, on first-degree rape and sodomy charges, arising out of two separate assaults. The petitioner retained private counsel, who initially entered pleas of not guilty on the petitioner's behalf.

A few weeks prior to the petitioner's trial date, Kentucky legislation providing for a finding of guilty but mentally ill took effect. This statute provided:

The court shall sentence a defendant found guilty but mentally ill at the time of the offense in the same manner as a defendant found guilty. If the defendant is found mentally ill at the time of sentencing, treatment shall be provided the defendant until he is no longer mentally ill or until expiration of his sentence, whichever occurs first.

Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 504.150 (Baldwin 1982). Pursuant to the newly enacted legislation, the petitioner, allegedly coerced by his father, entered a plea bargain, changing his pleas on the rape charges to guilty but mentally ill (GBMI). In exchange, the state moved to dismiss the two sodomy counts.

Before sentencing the petitioner, the court referred him to Dr. J. Emmanuel Willett, a clinical psychologist who had treated the petitioner off and on following an earlier assault conviction. Willett rendered a formal diagnosis of schizoid personality disorder, pointing out to the court that the petitioner trusted no one, including his lawyer or his parents. Based on Willett's evaluation, the court accepted the petitioner's GBMI pleas, and sentenced the petitioner to two ten-year sentences, to run consecutively.

Following sentencing, the petitioner was assigned to the Kentucky State Reformatory. The adjacent Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center provided the petitioner with both inpatient and outpatient treatment from the beginning of his incarceration in August 1982, through July 1985, when prison medical staff determined that further treatment was not needed. In addition, the petitioner declined repeated offers for group treatment through a sex-offender program.

In 1987, the petitioner filed the last of four state petitions seeking post-conviction relief. In this petition, the petitioner sought to vacate his sentence based on the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and on the state's failure to provide mental treatment. Following a two-day hearing in which the court heard testimony from, inter alia, the petitioner, his trial counsel, and the petitioner's father, the court rejected the petitioner's claims. The court specifically found that the petitioner's trial attorney had investigated the charges against the petitioner, adequately, and, under the circumstances, had reasonably recommended the GBMI pleas. The court also found that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his mental treatment failed to comply with Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 504.150. The state's intermediate appellate court affirmed the circuit court's order, and the state supreme court denied discretionary review.

In January 1991, the petitioner filed his civil rights complaint in this case, charging that respondents Corrections Secretary John Wigginton, Corrections Commissioner Wayne Dunn, and Kentucky State Reformatory Warden Al Parke violated the petitioner's federal constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983 and 1988. ¹ The petitioner also sought habeas corpus relief on the grounds that his plea was involuntary, that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he was denied psychiatric treatment allegedly promised in his plea agreement. In February 1993, the district court dismissed the petitioner's section 1983 claim. Shortly thereafter, in April 1993, the district court denied the petitioner habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner had waived his claim that his plea was involuntary, and had failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, the court found that the petitioner's contention that he had been denied promised psychiatric treatment failed to state a claim for habeas relief. This timely appeal followed.

II.

The respondents argue that a plain reading of the petitioner's section 1983 complaint demonstrates that it is based entirely on state law, and thus must be dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds. In response, the petitioner contends that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar his claim because, in addition to his interest in having state officials adhere to state law, he also has identified liberty and due process interests protected by the federal Constitution. Specifically, the petitioner claims a due process interest in having his plea bargain enforced, and contends that the Kentucky statute governing GBMI pleas created a constitutionally protected property interest.

Where, as here, the district court dismissed a complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), we must "examine the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and assume all material allegations to be true." Ana Leon T. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 823 F.2d 928, 930 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 945, 108 S.Ct. 333, 98 L.Ed.2d 360 (1987). "[M]ere conclusions," however, "will not be sufficient to state a civil rights claim." Id.

It is settled that "a claim that state officials violated state law in carrying out their official responsibilities is a claim against the State that is protected by the Eleventh Amendment." Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 121, 104 S.Ct. 900, 919, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). As the Pennhurst Court explained,

A federal court's grant of relief against state officials on the basis of state law ... does not vindicate the supreme authority of federal law. On the contrary, it is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law. Such a result conflicts directly with the principles of federalism that underlie the Eleventh Amendment.

Id. at 106, 104 S.Ct. at 911. Accordingly, states and their officials are immune from such suits in federal court, absent the state's unequivocal consent. Id. at 99-101, 104 S.Ct. at 907-08.

The petitioner argues that Pennhurst does not control here because, in addition to his claim that the respondents did not comply with state law, he has identified federal constitutional claims. First, relying on Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), he argues that he has a constitutional interest in enforcing the terms of his plea agreement.

He also claims that the state statute governing GBMI pleas created an independent due process interest in psychiatric treatment. In support of this claim, the petitioner cites Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989), in which the Supreme Court held that an inmate retains those liberty interests created by state law. Id. at 460-61, 109 S.Ct. at 1908-09.

We find the petitioner's challenge spurious. It is plain that the petitioner's complaint sought only to conform state officials' conduct to state law. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he tendered his plea "with the understanding ... that, during his imprisonment, [he] would receive treatment for his aforedescribed mental illness pursuant to K.R.S. 504.150." The plaintiff then set forth the statute in its entirety before concluding that he "has an adjudicated state law entitlement to treatment ... during his imprisonment until he is no longer mentally ill." Accordingly, the essence of the petitioner's claim was that state officials failed to provide psychiatric treatment in conformity with Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 504.150. Because the state did not consent to suit in federal court, the petitioner's claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The petitioner's claim that he identified independent federal constitutional interests as the basis for his section 1983 claim is without merit. While the petitioner summarily complained that he was deprived of "rights, privileges and immunities secured by the federal Constitution and laws, including, without limitation, the provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments," the petitioner nowhere identified the substance of the alleged deprivations. Such...