Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-31-2007
Martinez-Tull v. Gonzalez-Aleman
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4861
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Martinez-Tull v. Gonzalez-Aleman" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1052.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1052
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-220 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4861
________________
EDUARDO MARTINEZ-TULL
Appellant,
v.
CARLOS M. GONZALEZ-ALEMAN
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-04102)
District Judge: Honorable Jan E. DuBois
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
May 3, 2007
Before: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: May 31, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Eduardo Martinez-Tull appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his
complaint as frivolous. Because we determine that the appeal is lacking in arguable legal
merit, we will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
While incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix, Martinez-Tull filed a complaint in the District
Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that named Carlos M. Gonzalez-Aleman as
defendant. Martinez-Tull alleges that Gonzalez-Aleman, his former criminal defense
attorney, violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by failing to provide adequate
representation on direct appeal, and also stole ten thousand dollars from Martinez-Tull.
(Compl. at 1-2.) He seeks compensatory and punitive damages totaling $1,500,000. (Id.
at 2.)
The District Court dismissed Martinez-Tull’s complaint as frivolous, reasoning
that “[t]he complaint filed in this case does not allege or even suggest that the defendant .
. . acted under color of state law with respect to plaintiff’s claim.” (Order at 2.) The
dismissal was without prejudice to Martinez-Tull’s right to file an action against
Gonzalez-Aleman for breach of contract and related claims in an appropriate forum. (Id.)
Martinez-Tull filed a timely notice of appeal.
His appeal is clearly devoid of legal merit. A plaintiff cannot state a viable claim
under § 1983 without alleging that the violation of federal rights of which he complains
“was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” See Harvey v. Plains Twp.
Police Dep’t, 421 F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir. 2005). Criminal defense attorneys such as
Gonzalez-Aleman do not act under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312, 319-25 (1981)(function of defense lawyer is “essentially . . . private” and
performed without “state office and authority,” even though lawyer is licensed by
government and even if he is employed by government as public defender).
“[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a
2
lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” Id. at
325. Martinez-Tull does not allege that Gonzalez-Aleman was employed by or even
appointed to represent him by the state.
Indisputably, a claim will not lie against Gonzalez-Aleman under § 1983 because
he did not act under color of state law. Therefore, we will dismiss this appeal under §
1915(e)(2).
3