Coleman v. Cotta

C.D. Illinois

Coleman v. Cotta

DecidedJune 18, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-01210

StatusUnknown

This text of Coleman v. Cotta (Coleman v. Cotta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coleman v. Cotta, (C.D. Ill. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

RHONDA COLEMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:25-cv-01210-MMM ) NICK COTTA, ) ) Defendant. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se from the Fulton County Jail, pursues an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 F. App’x 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff seeks to sue Nick Cotta, a Public Defender in Fulton County, Illinois, for declining to represent her due to a conflict of interest. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff cannot sue an attorney for declining representation due to a conflict of interest. Criminal lawyers are bound by ethical and constitutional considerations and must not engage in representation where the attorney determines that a conflict of interest exists. Further, in general, criminal defense lawyers are not amenable to suit for their activities as attorneys under § 1983 because “a [defense lawyer] does not act under

color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is allowed 21 days to file an amended complaint if she believes she can do so consistent with this order. If Plaintiff does not amend the case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Entered this 18th day of June, 2025. s/ Michael M. Mihm MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

RHONDA COLEMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:25-cv-01210-MMM ) NICK COTTA, ) ) Defendant. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se from the Fulton County Jail, pursues an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 F. App’x 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff seeks to sue Nick Cotta, a Public Defender in Fulton County, Illinois, for declining to represent her due to a conflict of interest. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff cannot sue an attorney for declining representation due to a conflict of interest. Criminal lawyers are bound by ethical and constitutional considerations and must not engage in representation where the attorney determines that a conflict of interest exists. Further, in general, criminal defense lawyers are not amenable to suit for their activities as attorneys under § 1983 because “a [defense lawyer] does not act under

color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is allowed 21 days to file an amended complaint if she believes she can do so consistent with this order. If Plaintiff does not amend the case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Entered this 18th day of June, 2025. s/ Michael M. Mihm MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Coleman v. Cotta, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-cotta-ilcd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack