HLD-125 (April 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-4465
___________
PURNELL R. NELSON,
Appellant
v.
KENNETH A. RAPP,
Public Defender, Dauphin County
Public Defender's Office
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-02011)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 30, 2010
Before: SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : May 24, 2010)
____________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
Purnell R. Nelson appeals from the order of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his civil rights action. Nelson is an
1
inmate of the Dauphin County Prison. He filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Kenneth A. Rapp, the Public Defender of Dauphin County. The District
Court’s memorandum sets forth the allegations of the complaint, so we revisit them in
summary only. Nelson alleged that his constitutional rights were violated in relation to
proceedings in two criminal matters in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas.
More specifically, according to Nelson, he was arraigned via videoconference, his request
for attorney representation was denied, and he was coerced into pleading guilty to the
charges. Nelson alleged that he suffered mental anguish, for which he has undergone
psychological treatment, as a result of the defendant’s malpractice and incompetence.
Further, he asserted that the defendant acted outside the scope of his duties by failing to
appear in court, and that the defendant’s unethical behavior violated his constitutional
rights. As relief, Nelson sought $1 million in compensatory damages and the same
amount in punitive damages, and he also sought the injunctive relief of halting the
violation of his constitutional rights.
Nelson was granted in forma pauperis status in District Court. The District
Court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Upon consideration of
the record, we will affirm. As noted by the District Court, a public defender does not act
“under color of state law” and is not liable under section 1983 when performing a
2
lawyer’s traditional functions as defense counsel. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,
325 (1981). Despite Nelson’s assertion that the defendant was acting outside of the scope
of his professional duties, the conduct alleged here falls within defense counsel’s
traditional functions. Thus, Nelson’s allegations fail to state a claim under section 1983.
Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons as those set forth by the
District Court in its memorandum, we will affirm. Nelson’s motion for appointment of
counsel is denied.
3