Hadley v. Werner
| Decision Date | 28 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1572,82-1572 |
| Citation | 753 F.2d 514 |
| Parties | Willie Leon HADLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick S. WERNER, County of Saginaw, Michigan County Board of Supervisors, 70th District Court County of Saginaw, Saginaw County Board of Commissioners, State of Michigan, Saginaw County Board of Auditors, Saginaw County Treasurers, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Kim F. Bixenstine, argued, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael D. Thomas, Borrello, Thomas & Jensen, Peter Jensen, argued, Saginaw, Mich., for defendants-appellees.
Before EDWARDS * and JONES, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Appellant appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action on the basis that his complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm dismissal, but modify the district court's order, which shall be dismissal without prejudice to appellant's section 1983 claim.
On March 13, 1980, Willie Leon Hadley pleaded guilty but mentally ill to the Michigan criminal charge of assault with intent to murder. He was sentenced to ten to twenty years in state prison. On March 11, 1982, Hadley filed this civil rights action pro se in district court. Hadley alleged that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to the inadequate performance of his court-appointed attorney during the earlier criminal trial. Hadley maintained that the fee schedule utilized in Saginaw County, Michigan to compensate court-appointed counsel representing indigent defendants was inadequate and proximately caused the ineffective representation which he received. According to Hadley, the fee schedule was adopted in 1963 and by 1980 the low fees could attract only the least experienced and capable attorneys who, because of the inadequate fees, remained unwilling to devote the time necessary to render effective assistance to their indigent criminal clients. Hadley claims that his court-appointed attorney was both incompetent and unwilling to adequately prepare Hadley's complex insanity defense.
Hadley's complaint named as defendants Patrick S. Werner, the assigned counsel administrator for Saginaw County, Michigan, who assigned counsel to Hadley, the 70th District Court for the County of Saginaw, the Chief Judge of which appointed Hadley's counsel, the County of Saginaw and its Board of Commissioners, Board of Auditors, and Treasurer, and the State of Michigan. Each named defendant, according to Hadley, participated in the authorization, funding or operation of the court-appointed counsel system and knew or should have known that Saginaw County's custom or policy of paying inadequate fees to appointed counsel has deprived Hadley and other indigent criminal defendants of their constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel. Hadley sought $85 million in damages, and an injunction ordering the defendants not to violate his constitutional rights in the future.
After denying Hadley the assistance of a court-appointed attorney, and prior to discovery, the district court granted defendants' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court ruled that legislative or judicial immunity protected each defendant from liability for damages.
On appeal Hadley maintains that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his section 1983 claim. The jurisdictional issue was not raised below, however, in light of this Court's responsibility to consider matters of jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, In Re F & T Contractors, Inc. v. Cunrell, 718 F.2d 171, 180 (6th Cir.1983); Jones v. Perrigan, 459 F.2d 81, 83 (6th Cir.1972), it is appropriate to address these contentions.
Hadley's claim that Saginaw, Michigan's appointed-counsel fee schedule violated his constitutional rights is predicated upon his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and involuntarily pleaded guilty. Thus, a necessary portion of his claim challenges the validity of Hadley's conviction and consequent confinement. Although Hadley's complaint seeks damages rather than release, it is appropriate to vacate the district court judgment that he did not state a cause of action, dismiss Hadley's action and direct him to pursue relief through a 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition for habeas corpus.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bressman v. Farrier
...employs this test when convictions are at issue, but does not when disciplinary procedures are challenged. See Hadley v. Werner, 753 F.2d 514, 516 (6th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (attack on conviction controlled by Preiser despite prayer for damages); Feaster v. Miksch, 846 F.2d 21, 22-24 (6th ......
- Perna v. Health One Credit Union
-
Clarke v. Stalder
... ... Dixon v. Chrans, 101 F.3d 1228, 1231 (7th Cir.1996); Hadley v. Werner, 753 F.2d 514, 516 (6th Cir.1985). We find it helpful to analogize to the law governing the waiver of the requirement that a state ... ...
-
Nalls v. Montgomery Cnty. Prosecutor's Office
... ... 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he has exhausted his state ... remedies. See Preiser , 411 U.S. at 500; Hadley ... v. Werner , 753 F.2d 514, 516 (6th Cir. 1985) ... [ 11 ] While dismissal under Heck ... is typically without prejudice, ... ...