Taylor v. Diznoff, Civ. A. No. 86-194.
Decision Date | 25 April 1986 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 86-194. |
Citation | 633 F. Supp. 640 |
Parties | Carole L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. Laurel DIZNOFF, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Carole L. Taylor, pro se.
Arnold M. Friedman, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
Plaintiff filed this action pro se. The caption of her Complaint contains the heading "Civil Rights Violation and Freedom of Information Act Violation."1 Presently pending is defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, to which plaintiff has responded.
At the outset we recognize that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally. Mazur v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 507 F.Supp. 3, 4 (E.D.PA 1980), aff'd 649 F.2d 860 (3d Cir.1981), cert. den. 452 U.S. 962, 101 S.Ct. 3111, 69 L.Ed.2d 973 (1981); Henderson v. Fisher, 631 F.2d 1115, 1117 (3d Cir.1980).
Plaintiff's complaint arises out of a divorce case. Defendant is her husband's attorney. Defendant subpoenaed plaintiff's personnel file at her place of employment as part of that action. Plaintiff believes that defendant's copying of certain documents in the file and discussion of the contents with others, without notice and an opportunity to be present, violates her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In deciding the applicability of Section 1983 the court must first determine whether the acts complained of were performed "under color of any statute, ordinance, or regulation, custom or usage of any State or Territory." See Henderson, 631 F.2d at 1118. It is well established that an individual cannot sue a private attorney as a state actor under Section 1983 for conduct in a prior criminal trial. Black v. Bayer, 672 F.2d 309 (3d Cir.1982), cert. den. 459 U.S. 916, 103 S.Ct. 230, 74 L.Ed.2d 182 (1982); Henderson, 631 F.2d 1115; Gay v. Watkins, 579 F.Supp. 1019 (E.D.Pa. 1984). This rule is subject to the exception that joint action with a state official may convert the private party's conduct into the sort actionable under section 1983. Black, 672 F.2d at 318. Plaintiff cannot take advantage of this exception. Her pleadings, construed liberally or otherwise, reveal a disagreement only with her husband's attorney's manner of gathering information in preparing for a divorce hearing.
There is appreciably less authority on a private attorney's liability under section 1983 when the prior proceeding was civil. We believe the circumstances for finding such liability even less compelling in regard to prior civil matters, where the state was not even a party to the proceeding.
In Dahlberg v. Becker, 748 F.2d 85 (2d Cir.1984), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit2 considered a question of first impression similar to ours. There, the former husband was jailed for a night for repeated failure to satisfy a stipulation of settlement that had been made part of a divorce decree. The husband then sued his former wife and her attorneys, who of course had initiated the legal proceedings that led to his confinement, under section 1983. The court upheld the district court's dismissal of the action under Rule 12(b)(6) because of the absence of a state actor or state action. Here, where the injury is less perceptible and the basis for misconduct much less clearly defined, we likewise can discern no circumstances under which defendant's action can be fairly attributed to the state. See also Kovacs v. Goodman, 383 F.Supp. 507 (E.D.Pa.1974), aff'd 515 F.2d 507 (3d Cir.1975).3
Plaintiff's invocation of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, has no moment since the statute applies only to government agencies.
Similarly, the Fourth Amendment does not extend to the conduct of private persons absent an association with government officials that we previously have found lacking. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984).
Plaintiff also has asserted violations of the Code of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Church of Scientology Int'l v. Kolts, CV 93-1390-RSWL (EEx).
...District of Minnesota addressing attorney discipline do not confer subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts); Taylor v. Diznoff, 633 F.Supp. 640, 642 (W.D.Pa.1986) (holding that the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the feder......
-
Nanya-Nashut, ex rel Hand v. Bankone, National Association Trustee, CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-4022 (E.D. Pa. 9/9/2003)
..."On the other hand, a judge may not become a surrogate attorney for the party, even one who is proceeding pro se. Taylor v. Diznoff, 633 F. Supp. 640, 641 (W.D. Pa. 1986)(quoting Mazur v. Pa. Dept. of Transp., 507 F. Supp. 3, 4 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff'd 649 F.2d 860 (3d Cir. 1981)). "A pro se ......
-
Rumfola v. Murovich
...official and did not act under color of state law, his alleged wrongdoings fall without the purview of Section 1983. See Taylor v. Diznoff, 633 F.Supp. 640 (W.D.Pa.1986). The dismissal of defendant Murovich from this action is deemed by this member of the Court to be the law of the case; Mu......
-
INDEPENDENT FEDERATION OF FLIGHT ATTEND. v. Davis
... ... Civ. A. No. 86-0877-C ... United States District Court, D. Massachusetts ... ...
-
Privatization and the Freedom of Information Act: an analysis of public access to private entities under federal law.
...T. O'REILLY, FEDERAL INFORMATION DISCLOSURE [sections] 4.02, at 4.3 (2d ed. 1999). (69.) See O'REILLY, supra note 68; Taylor v. Diznoff, 633 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Pa. 1986). One commentator stated that a private entity can only be considered an agency if it has statutory authority to make deci......