Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-25-2008
Stackhouse v. Crocker
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4296
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Stackhouse v. Crocker" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1528.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1528
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-130 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4296
___________
STEPHEN STACKHOUSE,
Appellant
v.
CHRISTOPHER CROCKER, OF CROCKER AND CROCKER LAW OFFICE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-03957)
District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage
____________________________________
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
February 14, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 25, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Stephen Stackhouse appeals from the order of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint. We will dismiss the appeal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In 2007, Stackhouse filed the instant lawsuit using a pre-printed form for
prisoner’s lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, although he was not incarcerated at the time.
Stackhouse seeks damages from the private attorney, Christopher Cocker, who previously
represented him in a separate lawsuit he filed against the warden of the Philadelphia
Detention Center and the City of Philadelphia for injuries he sustained while being held at
the Philadelphia Detention Center in 1994. In that suit, Stackhouse alleged that another
inmate hit him in the back of the head with a baseball bat, and he was hospitalized with a
cerebral hemorrhage. He settled with the warden and the City, and the District Court
dismissed that lawsuit. Stackhouse filed an appeal, but we dismissed it because it was
untimely.
Because Stackhouse is proceeding in forma pauperis, we must analyze his appeal
for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under that statute, we must
dismiss an appeal if it lacks arguable merit in fact or law. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Although his claim is not exactly clear in the instant complaint, Stackhouse
appears to be dissatisfied with the result from the prior lawsuit and alleges that his
attorney failed to argue for a continuance. As the District Court points out, however,
Stackhouse has framed the claim as one under § 1983 by using the pre-printed prisoner
lawsuit form. In order to bring a claim under § 1983, Stackhouse must demonstrate that
Crocker acted under color of state law and deprived him of a constitutional right. See
2
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil, Co., 457 U.S. 922, 930 (1982). Because his private attorney
was not a state actor, however, he could not be liable under § 1983. See Angelico v.
Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 184 F.3d 268, 276 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Polk County v.
Dotson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 (1981). Stackhouse provides no reason that Crocker should be
considered to have acted under color of state law. The District Court properly dismissed
the lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
We would add that, even if we were to disregard the usage of the pre-printed form
and the § 1983 label, the complaint does not contain a basis for the District Court to
otherwise exercise its jurisdiction. Stackhouse could be claiming that his attorney is
liable for malpractice, but as a state law claim, there is no basis of federal jurisdiction
here. Likewise, the plaintiff does not allege diversity jurisdiction.
The appeal will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3