James C. Wardrop v. John J. Dean, Assistant Public Defender, Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Third Circuit

James C. Wardrop v. John J. Dean, Assistant Public Defender, Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

459 F.2d 1030, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9819

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 1972

Docket71-1449

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 1030 (James C. Wardrop v. John J. Dean, Assistant Public Defender, Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James C. Wardrop v. John J. Dean, Assistant Public Defender, Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 459 F.2d 1030, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9819 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this action, brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a state prisoner sued the lawyer who was appointed to represent him in a Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act appeal.

Wardrop was indicted for burglary in 1963 in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny County. On the advice of retained counsel, Wardrop entered a guilty plea to the charges and was sentenced to a term of one to ten years. He was paroled in 1965 and re-committed as a parole violator in 1968. Shortly after he returned to jail, Wardrop filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Pennsylvania courts. Following a hearing at which he was again represented by retained counsel, relief was denied. Wardrop filed an appeal to the Superior Court from the denial, and the court remanded the case for appointment of counsel on appeal.

The Allegheny County Public Defender’s Office was designated to take the appeal — the Office’s first contact of any sort with the Wardrop case. Wardrop filed a motion in the Superior Court to proceed in his own behalf and to delete the brief filed by the Public Defender as his counsel. Although it granted the pro se motion, the Superior Court refused to remove the brief filed by the Public Defender. The denial of post-conviction relief was subsequently affirmed by the Superior Court. Ward-rop then filed a complaint in Federal Court alleging that the Defender wil-fully misrepresented him on the appeal, and he now appeals to this Court from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

A serious question is presented whether the Public Defender, when it undertook Wardrop’s case, was acting under color of state law within the meaning of Section 1983. See Thomas v. Howard, 455 F.2d 228 (3d Cir. 1972). However, even assuming arguendo that the color of law requirement was met, it seems clear that the allegations of Wardrop’s complaint could not give rise to any federal relief. Wardrop did not desire the services of the Defender, and, in fact, he was permitted to file his own'brief in the Superior Court. Under such circumstances, it is inconceivable that he has any federal claim against the Allegheny County Public Defender.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this action, brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a state prisoner sued the lawyer who was appointed to represent him in a Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act appeal.

Wardrop was indicted for burglary in 1963 in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny County. On the advice of retained counsel, Wardrop entered a guilty plea to the charges and was sentenced to a term of one to ten years. He was paroled in 1965 and re-committed as a parole violator in 1968. Shortly after he returned to jail, Wardrop filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Pennsylvania courts. Following a hearing at which he was again represented by retained counsel, relief was denied. Wardrop filed an appeal to the Superior Court from the denial, and the court remanded the case for appointment of counsel on appeal.

The Allegheny County Public Defender’s Office was designated to take the appeal — the Office’s first contact of any sort with the Wardrop case. Wardrop filed a motion in the Superior Court to proceed in his own behalf and to delete the brief filed by the Public Defender as his counsel. Although it granted the pro se motion, the Superior Court refused to remove the brief filed by the Public Defender. The denial of post-conviction relief was subsequently affirmed by the Superior Court. Ward-rop then filed a complaint in Federal Court alleging that the Defender wil-fully misrepresented him on the appeal, and he now appeals to this Court from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

A serious question is presented whether the Public Defender, when it undertook Wardrop’s case, was acting under color of state law within the meaning of Section 1983. See Thomas v. Howard, 455 F.2d 228 (3d Cir. 1972). However, even assuming arguendo that the color of law requirement was met, it seems clear that the allegations of Wardrop’s complaint could not give rise to any federal relief. Wardrop did not desire the services of the Defender, and, in fact, he was permitted to file his own'brief in the Superior Court. Under such circumstances, it is inconceivable that he has any federal claim against the Allegheny County Public Defender.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 F.2d 1030, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-c-wardrop-v-john-j-dean-assistant-public-defender-allegheny-ca3-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack