Holbird v. Armstrong-Wright, ARMSTRONG-WRIGH
| Decision Date | 26 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1404,ARMSTRONG-WRIGH,A,91-1404 |
| Citation | 949 F.2d 1019 |
| Parties | Judy Ellen HOLBIRD, Appellant, v. Debrappellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Judy Ellen Holbird, appellant pro se.
No appearance for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Judy Ellen Holbird appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Western District of Arkansas dismissing her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Holbird, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Debra Armstrong-Wright, an attorney in private practice in Fort Smith, Arkansas, as defendant. Holbird related that Armstrong-Wright had served as her appointed counsel for about one and one-half years in a federal district court civil rights case. Holbird alleged that Armstrong-Wright's actions had violated her constitutional rights and further, that Armstrong-Wright had retained or otherwise disposed of case documents and records belonging to Holbird. Holbird described a series of actions and inactions by Armstrong-Wright which Holbird characterized as professional misconduct and "deliberate indifference to the wishes and instructions of client to her counsel" which continued until Holbird's motion to remove Armstrong-Wright from the case was granted by the district court. Holbird admitted that she received certain records back, but found pages missing and stated her belief that Armstrong-Wright had supplied the missing documents to the prosecuting attorney's office to benefit the defendants in the civil rights case Holbird was prosecuting with Armstrong-Wright as counsel. Holbird requested monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to the production and return of materials.
Adopting the magistrate judge's 2 report and recommendation after consideration of Holbird's objections, the district court effected a section 1915(d) dismissal of the action. Holbird filed a timely notice of appeal. She argues on appeal that she is being denied due process and equal treatment and that her action "should be processed" because it is "an exceptional case."
The conduct of counsel, either retained or appointed, in representing clients, does not constitute action under color of state law for purposes of section 1983 violations. Harkins v. Eldredge, 505 F.2d 802, 803 (8th Cir.1974) (per curiam); see also Eling v. Jones, 797 F.2d 697, 699 (8th Cir.1986), cert....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Magee v. Trs. of the Hamline Univ.
...insufficient; the conspiracy, or meeting of the minds, must be pleaded with specificity and factual support. See Holbird v. Armstrong–Wright, 949 F.2d 1019, 1020 (8th Cir.1991); Deck v. Leftridge, 771 F.2d 1168, 1170 (8th Cir.1985). In her objections, Magee again merely reiterates the alleg......
-
Wann v. St. Francois Cnty.
...clients, does not constitute action under color of state law for purposes of section 1983 violations." Holbird v. Armstrong-Wright, 949 F.2d 1019, 1020 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing Harkins v. Eldridge, 505 F.2d 802, 803 (8th Cir. 1974) (per curiam); Eling v. Jones, 797 F.2d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 19......
-
Livingston v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. Div. of Prob.
...1993). Plaintiff's allegations of conspiracy are broad and conclusory, lacking an arguable basis in fact. See Holbird v. Armstrong-Wright, 949 F.2d 1019, 1020 (8th Cir. 1991) (complaint subject to dismissal under § 1915(d) if allegations of conspiracy are inadequate); Smith v. Bacon, 699 F.......
-
O'Neill v. Dir. Virginia Dep't of Corr.
...The "conduct of counsel, whether retained or appointed, does not constitute state action." Id. (citing Hoi bird v. Armstrong-Wright, 949 F.2d 1019, 1020 (8th Cir. 1991)); accord Dunker v. Bissonnette, 154 F. Supp. 2d 95, 104-05 (D. Mass. 2001); see Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25......