Source: cases/42usc1983/f2d-628-1104-dodson-v-polk-county.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f2d/volume_628/1104_01/index.html
Public defenders receive their power not because they are selected by their clients, but because they are employed by the County to represent a certain class of clients, who likely have little or no choice in selecting the lawyer who will defend them.
We hold that an attorney in a county or state funded public defender’s office acts under color of state law in representing indigent defendants.
There can be no question that the members of the Polk County Board of Supervisors, in carrying out the responsibilities of that office, act under color of state law.
Whether the requisite personal involvement by the Offender Advocate in the claimed unconstitutional conduct was sufficiently alleged, however, is a separate issue which the District Court did not reach.
These allegations are sufficient, as a matter of pleading, to state a § 1983 claim against the Offender Advocate.
Similar allegations were made as to the involvement of the Polk County Board of Supervisors, and we hold that the complaint is sufficient to state a claim against the Board members for the same reason.
Even though we interpret the allegations expansively, we are unable to say that the complaint alleges the necessary county involvement in the claimed unconstitutional conduct by virtue of the execution of county policy or custom.
We perceive no distinction of substance, for immunity purposes, between appointed counsel and a public defender. Both owe primary allegiance to the client and represent the public interest only in a general way.
For these reasons, we are compelled to deny the invitation to extend absolute immunity to public defenders.
The defender oversteps the immunity boundary, however, if he acts in a manner which he knows or reasonably should know will violate the constitutional rights of his client, or if he acts with the malicious intention to injure his client.
We hold, therefore, that in § 1983 suits attorneys employed by public defender offices enjoy the qualified immunity we have described for actions taken while representing indigent clients.
This claim is in the nature of habeas corpus, and it is conceded that state remedies have not been exhausted.
casedsl 1 case /f2d/628/1104-01 name Dodson v. Polk County cite 628 F.2d 1104 (1980) court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit date 1980-08-26 url catalog/cases/f2d/volume_628/1104_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f2d_628.jsonl sha1=0a45a63163a6d654437680ef78c1aabf8d603aff chars=24728 law 42usc1983 role applied posture civil; pro se prisoner's complaint against county public defender, her supervisor, county board and county dismissed as frivolous (no state action / no personal involvement); plaintiff appeals; reversed and remanded except habeas-type injunction claim result remanded element color-of-law : satisfied [pleaded] variant public-official/county-employed-public-defender-representing-indigent party Shepard (assistant public defender) and the Offender Advocate fact @376..593 [supports] | The complaint alleged that Martha Shepard, an attorney in the Polk County, Iowa, Offender Advocate’s office, failed to represent appellant adequately in his appeal of a robbery conviction to the Supreme Court of Iowa. fact @1097..1205 [supports] | Subsequently, she moved for permission to withdraw as counsel and to have the appeal dismissed as frivolous. fact @3484..3553 [supports] | All these lawyers are selected, paid, hired, and fired by the County. rule @3729..3980 | Public defenders receive their power not because they are selected by their clients, but because they are employed by the County to represent a certain class of clients, who likely have little or no choice in selecting the lawyer who will defend them. held @4234..4378 | We hold that an attorney in a county or state funded public defender’s office acts under color of state law in representing indigent defendants. gloss Employment relationship is dispositive; county's lack of control over individual professional decisions and the defender's duty of undivided loyalty to the client are assumed and held "beside the point". Private court-appointed counsel still not under color of law. Dissent: wrong was not "made possible only because" of public office. element color-of-law : satisfied [law] variant public-official/county-governing-board-members party Polk County Board of Supervisors members held @15569..15734 | There can be no question that the members of the Polk County Board of Supervisors, in carrying out the responsibilities of that office, act under color of state law. element causation : satisfied [pleaded] variant supervisory/established-rules-and-procedures-subordinate-followed party Offender Advocate and Board of Supervisors members fact @1762..2014 [supports] | The Polk County Offender Advocate and the Polk County Board of Supervisors, also named as defendants, were alleged to be responsible for Ms. Shepard’s actions because they established rules and procedures for her to follow in handling criminal appeals. rule @11175..11377 | Whether the requisite personal involvement by the Offender Advocate in the claimed unconstitutional conduct was sufficiently alleged, however, is a separate issue which the District Court did not reach. held @11817..11930 | These allegations are sufficient, as a matter of pleading, to state a § 1983 claim against the Offender Advocate. held @12056..12257 | Similar allegations were made as to the involvement of the Polk County Board of Supervisors, and we hold that the complaint is sufficient to state a claim against the Board members for the same reason. gloss Pro se complaint read expansively; court flags that summary judgment on no-personal-involvement may follow if the rules had nothing to do with the defender's conduct. element policy : not-satisfied [pleaded] variant policy-or-custom/entity-named-only-as-source-of-authority party Polk County (entity) fact @15735..16070 [supports] | . The portion of the complaint which names Polk County reads as follows: “Polk County is enjoined [sic-perhaps “joined” is meant] in this action because it is the political basis, and the source that authorized it’s [sic] political sub-divisions and it’s [sic] quasi-contractants to act in the manner prescribed in this complaint . . . held @12870..13099 | Even though we interpret the allegations expansively, we are unable to say that the complaint alleges the necessary county involvement in the claimed unconstitutional conduct by virtue of the execution of county policy or custom. gloss Deficient as pleaded but leave to amend ordered on remand, so the failure is provisional. element deprivation : not-reached gloss Alleged deprivations (right to counsel, Eighth Amendment, due-process denial of state-created appeal right) from counsel's motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal as frivolous; merits never examined. element person : not-reached element damages : not-reached defense x-absolute-immunity : not-satisfied [law] variant absolute-immunity/public-defender-akin-to-private-counsel party Shepard (public defender) rule @7155..7366 | We perceive no distinction of substance, for immunity purposes, between appointed counsel and a public defender. Both owe primary allegiance to the client and represent the public interest only in a general way. held @7844..7951 | For these reasons, we are compelled to deny the invitation to extend absolute immunity to public defenders. defense qualified-immunity : not-reached role rule-announced variant good-faith-immunity/public-defender-professional-judgment party Shepard; extended to Offender Advocate and Board members rule @9216..9453 | The defender oversteps the immunity boundary, however, if he acts in a manner which he knows or reasonably should know will violate the constitutional rights of his client, or if he acts with the malicious intention to injure his client. held @10682..10870 | We hold, therefore, that in § 1983 suits attorneys employed by public defender offices enjoy the qualified immunity we have described for actions taken while representing indigent clients. gloss Only AVAILABILITY of the defense to public defenders is decided (as a matter of law), with the test stated; whether it protects these defendants on these facts is for remand. Hence not-reached / rule-announced rather than "satisfied". defense x-habeas-exhaustion : satisfied [conceded] variant relief-in-nature-of-habeas/state-remedies-unexhausted count claim for injunction commanding release held @13672..13781 | This claim is in the nature of habeas corpus, and it is conceded that state remedies have not been exhausted. misfit Subsequent history is invisible: this color-of-law holding was reversed by the Supreme Court in Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (annotator's knowledge, not in the pinned text; the law file's gloss now notes it). The case notation has no validity/overruled flag, so the color-of-law block is still an `instance` and feeds a bad variant into the catalogue. misfit Not-satisfied with leave to amend (policy, for the County) is a provisional pleading failure; holding+basis cannot express "deficient as pleaded, opportunity to cure". misfit Per-defendant matrix: four defendants (defender, supervisor, board, county) x elements (color-of-law, causation, policy) x defenses; v1 types the qualifier as `party`, but its value is still free text naming one or several defendants, so blocks are not machine-joinable per defendant. misfit Causation-by-rulemaking for individual supervisors is supported by a "Cf. Monell" cite, blurring `causation` (personal involvement) and `policy` (entity liability); the same allegation (established rules and procedures) suffices against the individuals and fails against the County. misfit The key color-of-law fact (lawyers are selected, paid, hired and fired by the County) is stated by the court as its own premise on a frivolousness dismissal, not found or even quoted from the complaint; [pleaded] is approximate, and polarity [supports] does not say whose assertion it is. misfit Dissent (from offset 16465) disputes both color-of-law and the degree of immunity. v1 could carry it as `scope dissent` blocks, but none of its text was quoted in v0 and the migration froze the quote set, so it remains unrecorded.