Leon G. Schack v. Edward W. Starr, Special Assistant Public Defender

440 F.2d 378, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10981
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 1, 1971
Docket30819
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 440 F.2d 378 (Leon G. Schack v. Edward W. Starr, Special Assistant Public Defender) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leon G. Schack v. Edward W. Starr, Special Assistant Public Defender, 440 F.2d 378, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10981 (5th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Leon G. Schack has appealed from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his Civil Rights Act 1 damage suit against his former court-appointed counsel in state criminal proceedings. We affirm the ruling below.

The district court held a pre-trial evidentiary hearing at which only one witness was called, Appellee Starr. The appellant did not testify nor offer any other evidence in support of his contentions.

The gist of appellant’s complaint is that Attorney Starr unconscionably delayed final adjudication of his direct criminal appeals by failing to timely file the briefs. The appeals ultimately were affirmed after full appellate review. Schack v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 129; Schack v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 580.

*379 The district court ordered dismissal of the appeal on two grounds: (1) that the appellant “cannot establish, beyond mere speculation, that he suffered any damage as a result of the delays allegedly attributable to the defendant;” and (2) that the defendant-appellee, as a duly appointed state officer, is immune from suit regarding matters relating to his official duties.

Since we agree with the former holding we need not, and do not now decide whether court-appointed counsel has complete immunity from suit under the Civil Rights Act. Cf. Mulligan v. Schlachter, 6th Cir. 1968, 389 F.2d 231; Vance v. Robinson, W.D.N.C.1968, 292 F.Supp. 786. We find no merit in the appellant’s contention that the proceedings below lacked fundamental fairness.

The district court’s dismissal of the appellant’s complaint is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
440 F.2d 378, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leon-g-schack-v-edward-w-starr-special-assistant-public-defender-ca5-1971.