Reinke v. Richardson, Misc. No. 101.
| Decision Date | 15 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 101. |
| Citation | 279 F. Supp. 155 |
| Parties | William G. REINKE, Jr., Plaintiff, v. R. G. RICHARDSON, Jr., Attorney, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
William G. Reinke, Jr., pro se.
Plaintiff seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant, an attorney at law, was appointed on April 7, 1965, by Walworth county circuit judge Ernst John Watts to assist him in prosecuting his appeal from a conviction under Wis.Stat. § 943.24(1). From that date until plaintiff's release from custody in March, 1966, plaintiff alleges that the defendant did nothing to prosecute said appeal, and, consequently, plaintiff's time for appeal expired. Because of this, plaintiff contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right of appeal and suffered additional imprisonment. Plaintiff seeks damages for lost wages for the period from May, 1965 to March, 1966, plus $25,000 punitive damages.
An indispensable element of suits brought under § 1983 is a showing that the defendant acted under "color of law". Plaintiff maintains that this element is satisfied since his appointed attorney is an officer of the court. It has been held, however, that an attorney's status as an officer of the court does not make him a person who is acting under color of law. He is considered a private individual for purposes of § 1983. Pritt v. Johnson, 264 F.Supp. 167 (M.D. Pa.1967); Johnson v. Kreider, 264 F. Supp. 188 (M.D.Pa.1967); Pugliano v. Staziak, 231 F.Supp. 347 (W.D.Pa.1964).
A cause of action does not lie against an appointed attorney under § 1983. Therefore, under the discretion granted the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, plaintiff's request to bring his action in forma pauperis is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drexler v. Walters
...855 (7th Cir. 1963); Bottone v. Lindsley, 170 F.2d 705 (10th Cir. 1948); Kenney v. Fox, 232 F.2d 288 (6th Cir. 1956); Reinke v. Richardson, 279 F. Supp. 155 (E.D.Wis.1968); Christman v. Commonwealth of Pa., 275 F.Supp. 434 (W.D.Pa.1967); Pritt v. Johnson, 264 F.Supp. 167 (M.D.Pa.1967). 5 Pu......
-
Elders v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware
...attorney, although the appointment was pursuant to a statute, is not, in the sense here significant, state action. Reinke v. Richardson, 279 F.Supp. 155 (E.D.Wis.1968); Christman v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 275 F.Supp. 434 (W.D.Pa.1967). The acts of a court-appointed executor, although......
-
Winters v. Palumbo, 80-739C(3).
...motion to dismiss. There is ordinarily no state action to sustain a § 1983 action against a court-appointed attorney. Reinke v. Richardson, 279 F.Supp. 155 (E.D.Wis.1968); Christman v. Pennsylvania, 275 F.Supp. 434 (W.D.Pa.1967), cert. denied 393 U.S. 885, 89 S.Ct. 195, 21 L.Ed.2d 161 (1968......
-
Tasby v. Peek
...Joseph, 463 F.2d 1046 (3rd Cir. 1972); Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231 (6th Cir. 1968); Vance v. Robinson, supra; Reinke v. Richardson, 279 F.Supp. 155 (E.D.Wis.1968). "Even if this Court were to assume that the plaintiff has been deprived of a constitutionally secured right, a liberal......