Deas v. Potts
4th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Jones v. McLendon
- 2026Harrison W.D. Va.
- 2026Janet Laurenzi Frisco v. Charleston County Court of Common Pleas; Pet Helpers, Inc.; Melissa Susko; Futeral and Nelson LLC D.S.C.
- 2026Christopher Miller v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), Preston County Circuit Court, Judge [Name Unknown], Attorney Chris Wilson, Deandra Burton, Guardian Ad Litem, Attorney Richard Gutman S.D.W. Va
- 2026Page W.D. Va.
- 2026Ketchum W.D. Va.
- 2025Snipes v. Wachs D. Maryland
- 2025Bingham v. Churchill E.D. Va.
- 2025Bingham v. Shaw E.D. Va.
- 2025Azimi v. Pustilnik W.D. Va.
Cites 2 statutes
- Civil action for deprivation of rights
- State custody; remedies in Federal courts
Cites 2 cases
- Szijarto v. Legeman
- Nelson v. Stratton
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Joseph DEAS, Jr., Appellant, v. Attorney Jack POTTS, Appellee.
Judges
- Before RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and WIDENER, Circuit Judge.
Attorneys
- Joseph Deas, Jr., appellant pro se.
- Jack Potts, appellee pro se.
Joseph Deas, Jr., seeks to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the attorney whom he retained to represent him in a criminal matter. He alleges that his representation operated to deprive him of his constitutionally guaranteed ri£ht to the effective assistance of counsel, and, further, that the defendant failed to return $1,000 to Deas after he was discharged. The complaint seeks recovery of this $1,000 as well as additional amounts in compensatory and punitive damages.
A private attorney who is retained to represent a criminal defendant is not acting under color of state law, and therefore is not amenable to suit under § 1983. Nelson v. Stratton, 469 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 957, 93 S.Ct. 1432, 35 L.Ed.2d 691 (1973); Szijarto v. Legeman, 466 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1972); Shelton v. Randolph, 373 F.Supp. 448 (W.D.Va.1974). Deas may — if he so desires — attack his conviction on the basis of ineffective representation of counsel by filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.