Szijarto v. Legeman

9th Cir.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Citations: 466 F.2d 864

Decision Date: 8/24/1972

Docket Number: No. 71-2751

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Szijarto v. Legeman, 466 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1972)

More Cases: 9th Cir. decisions from 1972


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 4% most-cited · cited by 63 decisions
63
Citing decisions
4
Authorities cited
1
statute cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

13
3
1
2
8
36
1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

E.D. Cal.12
D. Ariz.11
D. Nev.9
9th Cir.7
N.D. Cal.7
4th Cir.2
Most recently cited by10
  • 2025Steelman v. Warshaw D. Ariz.
  • 2025Bailey v. Hoffman D. Or.
  • 2025Dinckan v. Mendez S.D. Cal.
  • 2025Bassford v. Mesa, City of D. Ariz.
  • 2025(PS) Ghafoori v. Tuolumne County Public Defender's Office E.D. Cal.
  • 2024Freeman 050101 v. Thornell D. Ariz.
  • 2024(PS) Kopp v. Tice-Raskin E.D. Cal.
  • 2024Langworthy v. Clallam County Sheriff W.D. Wash.
  • 2024Kauffman 360639 v. Mohave County Sheriff D. Ariz.
  • 2024Goodrum v. Butko D. Nev.
Cites 1 statute
  • Civil action for deprivation of rights
Cites 3 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

Victor Frank SZIJARTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles F. LEGEMAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Attorneys

  • Victor Frank Szijarto, in pro. per.
  • Charles F. Legeman, in pro. per.
majority PER CURIAM:

We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s action.

Plaintiff's claim was one for damages, and purportedly rested upon the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983). His allegations in substance were that defendant, an attorney whom plaintiff had retained, failed to render him reasonable assistance during a state criminal trial, to plaintiff’s injury.

But this Circuit, in common with others, has held that such a claim is not within the purview of the Civil Rights Act, the reason being that an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act “under color of” state law. Hence, the claim is not one coming within the jurisdiction of the district court. Dyer v. Rosenberg, 434 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1970); Fletcher v. Hook, 446. F.2d 14 (3rd Cir. 1971); Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231 (6th Cir. 1968); and see French v. Corrigan, 432 F.2d 1211 (7th Cir. 1970).

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.