Phillip Alfonso Espinoza v. Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender

Tenth Circuit

Phillip Alfonso Espinoza v. Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender

470 F.2d 1174, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6120

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 1972

Docket72-1667

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 470 F.2d 1174 (Phillip Alfonso Espinoza v. Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Phillip Alfonso Espinoza v. Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, 470 F.2d 1174, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6120 (10th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a federal civil rights action brought by plaintiff Espinoza against the defendants in their capacities as attorneys for the Colorado Public Defender’s Office. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Espinoza claims that he was denied due process and equal protection of the law because the defendants grossly mishandled and neglected legal matters which he had requested that they prosecute.

Specifically, Espinoza alleges numerous instances of the different defendants passing his legal work off to each other without taking any action. Further, he alleges that despite his numerous inquiries during the course of more than two years, the defendants continually delayed and procrastinated until his files were lost.

It is well settled that in order for a defendant to be liable under the federal Civil Rights Act he must have acted under color of state law to cause the denial of a federally protected right. See Jones v. Hopper, 410 F.2d 1323 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 991, 90 S.Ct. 1111, 25 L.Ed.2d 399 (1970). The Colorado office of State Public Defender derives its existence from Colorado statutes. See C.R.S. §§ 39-21-1 through 39-21-5. These statutes in no way attempt to control or otherwise influence the professional judg *1175 ment of a lawyer employed as a public defender. Additionally, a Colorado Public Defender’s professional duties and responsibilities toward his clients are identical in all respects to any other Colorado attorney whether privately retained or court-appointed.

Therefore, we hold that an attorney does not act under color of state law-simply because he has accepted employment as a Colorado Public Defender: See Thomas v. Howard, 455 F.2d 228 (3rd Cir. 1972); United States ex rel. Wood v. Blacker, 335 F.Supp. 43 (D.C N.J.1971); Peake v. County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 280 F.Supp. 853 (E.D.Pa.1968).

Upon docketing, this case was assigned to the summary calendar and the parties were so notified and invited to submit memoranda addressing the merits of their respective cases. Both have so responded. After having carefully considered the record on appeal and the memorandum of each party, we are convinced that the district court correctly dismissed this cause of action.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a federal civil rights action brought by plaintiff Espinoza against the defendants in their capacities as attorneys for the Colorado Public Defender’s Office. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Espinoza claims that he was denied due process and equal protection of the law because the defendants grossly mishandled and neglected legal matters which he had requested that they prosecute.

Specifically, Espinoza alleges numerous instances of the different defendants passing his legal work off to each other without taking any action. Further, he alleges that despite his numerous inquiries during the course of more than two years, the defendants continually delayed and procrastinated until his files were lost.

It is well settled that in order for a defendant to be liable under the federal Civil Rights Act he must have acted under color of state law to cause the denial of a federally protected right. See Jones v. Hopper, 410 F.2d 1323 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 991, 90 S.Ct. 1111, 25 L.Ed.2d 399 (1970). The Colorado office of State Public Defender derives its existence from Colorado statutes. See C.R.S. §§ 39-21-1 through 39-21-5. These statutes in no way attempt to control or otherwise influence the professional judg *1175 ment of a lawyer employed as a public defender. Additionally, a Colorado Public Defender’s professional duties and responsibilities toward his clients are identical in all respects to any other Colorado attorney whether privately retained or court-appointed.

Therefore, we hold that an attorney does not act under color of state law-simply because he has accepted employment as a Colorado Public Defender: See Thomas v. Howard, 455 F.2d 228 (3rd Cir. 1972); United States ex rel. Wood v. Blacker, 335 F.Supp. 43 (D.C N.J.1971); Peake v. County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 280 F.Supp. 853 (E.D.Pa.1968).

Upon docketing, this case was assigned to the summary calendar and the parties were so notified and invited to submit memoranda addressing the merits of their respective cases. Both have so responded. After having carefully considered the record on appeal and the memorandum of each party, we are convinced that the district court correctly dismissed this cause of action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F.2d 1174, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillip-alfonso-espinoza-v-rollie-r-rogers-colorado-state-public-ca10-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack