JOHN CHARLES THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY R. HOWARD, ESQUIRE
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 prisoner's claim against his attorney under the Civil Rights Act was barred by the statute of limitations and that the attorney was not acting under color of state law.
A prisoner sued his post-conviction attorney under the Civil Rights Act, alleging inadequate representation. The attorney had voluntarily represented …
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 Statute Of Limitations For Federal Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this ease, appellant, a prisoner of the State of New Jersey, is suing, under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970), the attorney who voluntarily represented him during post-conviction proceedings, on the ground that the defendant “did not fully represent your plaintiff to the best of his ability.” Although appellant demanded money damages, his brief is addressed to the legality of his conviction. However, that matter is not properly before us in this case because it was not raised or considered below. Furthermore, the complaint may not be construed as a petition for habeas corpus, because to do so here would defeat the cause of action since a private attorney would not be a proper party defendant to such action.
After hearing oral argument, the district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We conclude that the district court was correct.
Appellant’s cause of action, if any existed, in the absence of facts indicating otherwise, accrued no later than February 28, 1968, when the attorney-client relationship between the parties terminated. Because the Civil Rights Act contains no statute of limitations, the federal court must look to the law of the state in which it sits. Hughes v. Smith, 389 F. 2d 42 (3rd Cir. 1968); Henig v. Odorioso, 385 F. 2d 491 (3rd Cir. 1967). The New Jersey statute of limitations applicable to this case would be N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, which prescribes a period of two years. Since appellant did not file this action until March 25, 1970, his cause of action has been outlawed by the statute of limitations.
Furthermore, on the facts of this case, defendant, although acting voluntarily by assignment from a pool of attorneys of the Essex County Legal Aid-Criminal Division, was performing his duties solely for appellant, to whom he owed the absolute duty of loyalty, as if he were a privately retained attorney. N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-11. Therefore, the affidavits demonstrate that defendant was not acting “under color of state law, custom or usage” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act, see Pugliano v. Staziak, 231 F.Supp. 347 (W.D.Pa. 1964), aff’d per curiam, 345 F. 2d 797 (3rd Cir. 1965), and no triable issue of fact upon which relief may be granted remained in the case.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Polite v. Diehl, 507 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1974)
-
United States ex rel. George Simmons v. Mr. Robert J. Zibilich, 542 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1976)
-
Robinson v. Bergstrom, 579 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Henig v. Rocco A. Odorioso, 385 F.2d 491 (3d Cir. 1967)
- Hughes v. Smith, 389 F.2d 42 (3d Cir. 1968)
- Mitchell v. Parham, 345 F.2d 797 (10th Cir. 1965)