John Steward v. David J. Meeker

459 F.2d 669, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9789
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedMay 2, 1972
Docket71-1660
StatusPublished
Cited by38 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 669 (John Steward v. David J. Meeker) 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
John Steward v. David J. Meeker, 459 F.2d 669, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9789 (3d Cir. 1972).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this action brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, the plaintiff, John Steward, sues David Meeker, the attorney who represented him in 1969 when Mr. Steward was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, several violations of New Jersey law. The district court granted Mr. Meeker’s motion for summary judgment, and Mr. Steward has appealed.

Summary judgment was properly granted because the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, if true, could not meet the jurisdictional requirements of either section 1983 or section 1985.

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory . . .” deprives another of his civil rights. Although an attorney is an officer of the court, as privately retained counsel, Mr. Meeker owed an absolute duty of loyalty to his client, *670 N.J.S.A. 2A.-158A-11. Consequently, Mr. Meeker was acting as a private person in his representation of Mr. Steward, and was not acting under color of law within the meaning of section 1983. Thomas v. Howard, 455 F.2d 228 (3d Cir. 1972).

Section 1985 deals solely with conspiracies to interfere with civil rights, and specifically refers to the situation where “two or more persons . . conspire.” Mr. Steward alleges wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Meeker alone.

Because the allegations of the complaint failed to meet the requirements of either section of the Civil Rights Act under which the suit was filed, the judgment of the district court granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be affirmed.

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

Related

Smith v. Leonard
M.D. Pennsylvania, 2025
Medley v. Figliola
D. Delaware, 2024
TAYLOR v. KARSH
W.D. Pennsylvania, 2023
STOKES v. ELDRED
D. New Jersey, 2022
Webb v. GDWG Law Firm
D. Delaware, 2021
Webb v. Chapman
D. Delaware, 2021
Willis v. Bruno
M.D. Tennessee, 2020
Howard v. Chester Cnty. Office of Juvenile Prob.
365 F. Supp. 3d 562 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2019)
William Himchak, III v. Daniel Dye
684 F. App'x 249 (Third Circuit, 2017)
Sye Newton v. City of Wilmington
676 F. App'x 106 (Third Circuit, 2017)
Mikhail v. Kahn
991 F. Supp. 2d 596 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2014)
Howell v. Young
530 F. App'x 98 (Third Circuit, 2013)
Commonwealth v. Carsia
491 A.2d 237 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
459 F.2d 669, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-steward-v-david-j-meeker-ca3-1972.