LEON G. SCHACK, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD W. STARR, SPECIAL ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant failed to establish damages resulting from alleged delays by his court-appointed counsel.
Appellant sued his former court-appointed counsel for damages under the Civil Rights Act, alleging unconscionable delay in filing appellate briefs. Th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Act Of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Leon G. Schack has appealed from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his Civil Rights Act1 damage suit against his former court-appointed counsel in state criminal proceedings. We affirm the ruling below.
The district court held a pre-trial evidentiary hearing at which only one witness was called, Appellee Starr. The appellant did not testify nor offer any other evidence in support of his contentions.
The gist of appellant’s complaint is that Attorney Starr unconscionably delayed final adjudication of his direct criminal appeals by failing to timely file the briefs. The appeals ultimately were affirmed after full appellate review. Schack v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 129; Schack v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 580. The district court ordered dismissal of the appeal on two grounds: (1) that the appellant “cannot establish, beyond mere speculation, that he suffered any damage as a result of the delays allegedly attributable to the defendant;” and (2) that the defendant-appellee, as a duly appointed state officer, is immune from suit regarding matters relating to his official duties.
Since we agree with the former holding we need not, and do not now decide whether court-appointed counsel has complete immunity from suit under the Civil Rights Act. Cf. Mulligan v. Schlachter, 6th Cir. 1968, 389 F. 2d 231; Vance v. Robinson, W.D.N.C.1968, 292 F.Supp. 786. We find no merit in the appellant’s contention that the proceedings below lacked fundamental fairness.
The district court’s dismissal of the appellant’s complaint is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Mulligan v. Detective Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231 (6th Cir. 1968)
- Schack v. State, 199 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Foxworth v. State, 199 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Schack v. State, 201 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)