Figueroa v. Clark, 92-2867.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1992
• Docket Number: No. 92-2867.,92-2867.
• Citation: 810 F. Supp. 613
• Parties: Josue FIGUEROA v. Glennis CLARK, Lehigh County, Lehigh County District Attorneys Office, Maria Dantos, Michael Brunnabend, Frederick Charles, Charles Sieger, and James Heidecker.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

810 F. Supp. 613

Josue FIGUEROA v. Glennis CLARK, Lehigh County, Lehigh County District Attorneys Office, Maria Dantos, Michael Brunnabend, Frederick Charles, Charles Sieger, and James Heidecker.

No. 92-2867.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

November 5, 1992.

Josue Figueroa, Allentown, PA, pro se.

Robert L. Steinberg, Dist. Atty., Allentown, PA, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

GILES, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff was tried on criminal charges in state court and convicted by a jury on July 18, 1988. He is currently incarcerated at Lehigh County Prison. On May 18, 1992, plaintiff filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against Glennis Clark, former District Attorney of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office, and Michael Brunnabend, a public defender in the Lehigh County Public Defender Office. Defendant Clark was the prosecutor at plaintiff's criminal trial. Defendant Brunnabend represented plaintiff at his arraignment and during the trial. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that the defendants conspired to deprive him of his right to a fair trial and sought damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

In a Memorandum and Order dated June 1, 1992, this court dismissed as frivolous the claims against Glennis Clark and the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office because they were barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. The claims against public defender Michael Brunnabend were also dismissed, because a court appointed defense attorney is not acting under color of state law as is required to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The complaint alleged that defendant Brunnabend, while representing plaintiff, conspired with the district attorney's office to deprive plaintiff of a fair trial. Such a conspiracy may extend § 1983 liability to a non-state actor. However, the complaint made only general allegations of conspiracy without alleging specific facts. Such general allegations are insufficient to support a conspiracy-based § 1983 claim. Since plaintiff is pro se, the court's dismissal of the claim against Brunnabend was without prejudice, and plaintiff was given thirty days leave to file an amended complaint providing specific details about the alleged conspiracy. It was also ordered that the Clerk of the Court was not to serve the amended complaint until so ordered by the court.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 1992. The court has reviewed the amended complaint and now orders that it be served on all defendants. However, further proceedings in this matter are stayed until plaintiff exhausts the state remedies that are available to him.

II. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

In the amended complaint, Glennis Clark, the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office and Michael Brunnabend are again named as defendants. In addition, the amended complaint has added several new defendants: Frederick Charles, Maria Dantos, James Heidecker, Charles Sieger, and Lehigh County. The amended complaint alleges that Frederick Charles is Chief Public Defender of the Lehigh County Public Defender Office. Maria Dantos and James Heidecker are alleged to be public defenders who represented plaintiff at the pretrial stage of his criminal trial. Charles Sieger is allegedly an attorney appointed by the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas to represent plaintiff on an appeal from his conviction.

The amended complaint alleges that all of the defendants conspired to deprive plaintiff of a fair criminal trial, and that this conspiracy was part of an official Lehigh County policy or practice. The amended complaint also alleges that Lehigh County violated plaintiff's due process rights when it transferred him from one prison to another.

It is convenient to consider the amended complaint's claims in four groups, which will be discussed at greater length below. Plaintiff asks the court to hold all defendants criminally liable for their actions. These claims are frivolous and are dismissed. The remaining civil claims are conveniently divided into three groups defined by defendants. First, we consider the civil claims against the "prosecutor defendants," Glennis Clark and the Lehigh County District Attorneys Office. Second, we consider the claims against the "public defender defendants," Michael Brunnabend, Frederick Charles, Maria Dantos, James Heidecker, and Charles Sieger. Finally, we consider the claims against Lehigh County.

A. Criminal Claims Against All Defendants

Plaintiff has alleged that defendants' actions violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-42. These sections establish criminal liability for certain deprivations of civil rights. Plaintiff cannot bring criminal charges against defendants through a private lawsuit, and these sections do not give rise to a civil cause of action. U.S. ex rel. Savage v. Arnold, 403 F.Supp. 172 (E.D.Pa.1975). Therefore, these claims are dismissed as frivolous as to all defendants.¹

B. The Prosecutor Defendants

Plaintiff's amended complaint attempts to state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Glennis Clark and the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office. All of these claims concern the prosecution of plaintiff's criminal case. To the extent that plaintiff seeks damages against these defendants these claims are barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), and must therefore be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, plaintiff also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against the prosecutor defendants. These claims for injunctive and declaratory relief cannot be dismissed as frivolous. Although prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability under § 1983, they may be sued for declaratory and injunctive relief. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 736-37, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 1977, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980). Therefore, the complaint must be served on defendants Clark and Lehigh County District Attorney's Office.

C. The Public Defender Defendants

Plaintiff attempts to state 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims against his court appointed attorneys and the director of the public defender service. As the court explained in its earlier memorandum and order, a court appointed defense attorney is generally not acting under color of state law for the purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). However, § 1983 liability may extend to a non-state actor acting in conspiracy with a state actor. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28, 101 S.Ct. 183, 186, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980). In particular, public defenders are not immune from § 1983 liability when they conspire with state officials to deprive their client of federal rights. Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 104 S.Ct. 2820, 81 L.Ed.2d 758 (1984).²

Plaintiff's original complaint alleged a conspiracy between his attorneys and the District Attorney's Office. Such allegations are in principle sufficient to satisfy the state action requirements of a § 1983 claim. Id. However, plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed because it made only general allegations of conspiracy without alleging specific facts. Such general allegations are insufficient to support a § 1983 claim. See Oatess v. Sobolevitch, 914 F.2d 428, 431 n. 8 (3rd Cir.1990).³ Since plaintiff is pro se, the dismissal was without prejudice and he was given leave to amend his complaint.

The amended complaint still suffers somewhat from vague allegations. However, the court finds that it contains enough specific allegations of conspiracy to preclude dismissing the claim as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). "Dismissal under § 1915(d) is appropriate when the claims are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or on clearly baseless factual contentions." Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3rd Cir.1989) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325-26, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)). Because we find that the amended complaint does not "lack an arguable factual or legal basis," Wilson, 878 F.2d at 774, we order that it shall be served upon defendants Michael Brunnabend, Frederick Charles, Maria Dantos, James Heidecker, and Charles Sieger.⁴

D. Defendant Lehigh County

Plaintiff's claims against Lehigh County are of two different types. Plaintiff alleges that Lehigh County denied him due process of law by transferring him from one prison to another without a hearing. See "Fourth Cause of Action v. Lehigh County," Supplemental Complaint ¶ 52. Plaintiff also alleges that the actions of the prosecutor and public defender defendants, which allegedly deprived plaintiff of a fair trial, arose from the "policies, rules and regulations" of the county. See "Ninth Cause of Action v. Defendant Lehigh County," Supplemental Complaint ¶ 57. He therefore seeks to state a § 1983 claim against the county under the theory of Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

Plaintiff's claim that the alleged violations of his rights arose from an official policy, practice or custom is vague and conclusory. Since plaintiff is pro se, our normal course would be to dismiss this part of the complaint without prejudice and give plaintiff leave to amend the complaint with more specific allegations. However, given the disposition of the case discussed below, there is no reason to do so at this time. The complaint will therefore be served on defendant Lehigh County.

III. STAY OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Although the complaint is to be served, all further proceedings in this action are stayed until plaintiff has exhausted the remedies that are available to him in state courts. Exhaustion of state remedies is not normally required in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. However, certain features of this case require the court to abstain...