Claybourn v. Rouse

698 F. Supp. 730, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12672, 1988 WL 119948
District Court, N.D. Illinois·Decided November 1, 1988·No. No. 88 C 8280·Published

Opinion

ORDER

BUA, District Judge.

Plaintiff Percy Claybourn recently filed a § 1983 suit against defendant Viola Rouse, a public defender who represented Clayb-ourn in a previous criminal proceeding. To maintain this lawsuit, Claybourn must establish that Rouse’s allegedly unconstitutional conduct amounted to state action. In assessing the liability of a public defender under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Supreme Court has concluded that “a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a [731] criminal proceeding.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 453, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). Consequently, Claybourn cannot sue Rouse under § 1983 based on any actions she took while representing Claybourn. Because Claybourn has failed to state a cause of action against Rouse, this court denies Claybourn’s petition for leave to file in forma pauperis.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Claybourn v. Rouse, 698 F. Supp. 730, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12672, 1988 WL 119948 (N.D. Ill. 1988).

698 F. Supp. 730 (Claybourn v. Rouse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1981)