Maurice R. Dyer v. Bert M. Rosenberg

Ninth Circuit

Maurice R. Dyer v. Bert M. Rosenberg

434 F.2d 648, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6244

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 25, 1970

Docket25259_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 434 F.2d 648 (Maurice R. Dyer v. Bert M. Rosenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maurice R. Dyer v. Bert M. Rosenberg, 434 F.2d 648, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6244 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Dyer retained Rosenberg, an attorney, to defend him in a California criminal prosecution. Dyer was convicted and appealed. He alleges that his appeal was dismissed because Rosenberg failed to file an opening brief on appeal. The District Court dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and we affirm.

Dyer rests jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which confers jurisdiction of actions for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That section does not apply here. Rosenberg was not acting “under color of” state law. Kregger v. Posner, E.D.Mich. 1966, 248 F.Supp. 804, 806. See also Mulligan v. Schlachter, 6 Cir., 1968, 389 F.2d 231, 233, where the defendant had been the plaintiff’s court-appointed counsel in the state case.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Dyer retained Rosenberg, an attorney, to defend him in a California criminal prosecution. Dyer was convicted and appealed. He alleges that his appeal was dismissed because Rosenberg failed to file an opening brief on appeal. The District Court dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and we affirm.

Dyer rests jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which confers jurisdiction of actions for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That section does not apply here. Rosenberg was not acting “under color of” state law. Kregger v. Posner, E.D.Mich. 1966, 248 F.Supp. 804, 806. See also Mulligan v. Schlachter, 6 Cir., 1968, 389 F.2d 231, 233, where the defendant had been the plaintiff’s court-appointed counsel in the state case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 F.2d 648, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurice-r-dyer-v-bert-m-rosenberg-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack