Otha Lee Conley v. Office of the Public Defender, Sixth Judicial District of Arkansas, Pulaski and Perry Counties

Sixth Circuit

Otha Lee Conley v. Office of the Public Defender, Sixth Judicial District of Arkansas, Pulaski and Perry Counties

653 F.2d 1241, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11204

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 1981

Docket81-1072

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 653 F.2d 1241 (Otha Lee Conley v. Office of the Public Defender, Sixth Judicial District of Arkansas, Pulaski and Perry Counties) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Otha Lee Conley v. Office of the Public Defender, Sixth Judicial District of Arkansas, Pulaski and Perry Counties, 653 F.2d 1241, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11204 (6th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Otha Lee Conley appeals from the district court’s 1 order of December 31, 1980, dismissing his civil rights suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Conley, an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Corrections, alleged in his complaint that: (1) on September 4, 1978, William R. Simpson, a Deputy Public Defender for the Sixth Judicial District of Arkansas, was requested to witness a (police) lineup in which Conley, an indigent person, appeared; (2) the lineup was clearly suggestive and Simpson did nothing to ensure its fairness; (3) Conley was picked by the rape victim as her assailant; (4) Simpson subsequently appeared at plea and arraignment proceedings with Conley but Conley retained other legal counsel for the trial of the case; (5) at trial, Conley challenged the fairness of the September 4 lineup but Simpson testified for the State that the procedures of the lineup were consistent with procedures followed in other lineups; (6) Simpson gave false testimony in a conspiracy to convict appellant Conley of rape. The district court dismissed Conley’s complaint. We affirm.

The district court correctly dismissed the petition on the basis of witness immunity. Witnesses are absolutely immune from section 1983 remedy actions arising from their testimony in judicial proceedings. Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901, 100 S.Ct. 213, 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979). Furthermore, the office of the Public Defender for the Sixth Judicial District of Arkansas cannot be liable for the actions of its employees without a showing of direct responsibility. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375-376, 96 S.Ct. 598, 606-607, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). Conley’s allegations should be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding in the state courts of Arkansas. Section 1983 does not afford him a remedy.

The district court’s dismissal is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable William Overton, United States District Judge, Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

Otha Lee Conley appeals from the district court’s 1 order of December 31, 1980, dismissing his civil rights suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Conley, an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Corrections, alleged in his complaint that: (1) on September 4, 1978, William R. Simpson, a Deputy Public Defender for the Sixth Judicial District of Arkansas, was requested to witness a (police) lineup in which Conley, an indigent person, appeared; (2) the lineup was clearly suggestive and Simpson did nothing to ensure its fairness; (3) Conley was picked by the rape victim as her assailant; (4) Simpson subsequently appeared at plea and arraignment proceedings with Conley but Conley retained other legal counsel for the trial of the case; (5) at trial, Conley challenged the fairness of the September 4 lineup but Simpson testified for the State that the procedures of the lineup were consistent with procedures followed in other lineups; (6) Simpson gave false testimony in a conspiracy to convict appellant Conley of rape. The district court dismissed Conley’s complaint. We affirm.

The district court correctly dismissed the petition on the basis of witness immunity. Witnesses are absolutely immune from section 1983 remedy actions arising from their testimony in judicial proceedings. Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 901, 100 S.Ct. 213, 62 L.Ed.2d 138 (1979). Furthermore, the office of the Public Defender for the Sixth Judicial District of Arkansas cannot be liable for the actions of its employees without a showing of direct responsibility. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375-376, 96 S.Ct. 598, 606-607, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). Conley’s allegations should be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding in the state courts of Arkansas. Section 1983 does not afford him a remedy.

The district court’s dismissal is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable William Overton, United States District Judge, Eastern District of Arkansas.

Lonnie D. Snelling, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Thomas A. Westhoff, David K. Dowling, Charles Edward Cobb, Lester Eugene Smith, Carl Porter, James P. Calloway, Appellees/cross-Appellants. Lonnie D. Snelling, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Thomas A. Westhoff, Appellant/cross-Appellee, David K. Dowling, Charles Edward Cobb, Lester Eugene Smith, Carl Porter, James P. Calloway

972 F.2d 199 (Eighth Circuit, 1992)

Snelling v. Westhoff

972 F.2d 199 (Eighth Circuit, 1992)

Williams v. Hepting

844 F.2d 138 (Third Circuit, 1988)

Chauncey Marvin Holt v. Richard Modesto Castaneda

832 F.2d 123 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 F.2d 1241, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otha-lee-conley-v-office-of-the-public-defender-sixth-judicial-district-ca6-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack