Braxton v. Purcell, 1:15-cv-02828

Plaintiff Savino Braxton, a federal inmate, filed a § 1983 suit against AUSA John F. Purcell and court‑appointed attorney Andrew R. Szekely based on conduct during Braxton’s criminal proceedings and resentencing.
Braxton alleges a conspiracy between Purcell and Szekely to increase his sentence and faults Szekely for strategic choices that led to vacatur of his guilty plea and later a 20‑year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 851.
Braxton further alleges Purcell engaged in “judge shopping” on remand to avoid a judge who granted a downward departure.
The Court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard.
The Court found Purcell’s actions prosecutorial and therefore protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity; it found Szekely (a privately retained / court‑appointed defense lawyer) was not acting under color of state law for § 1983 purposes absent adequate conspiracy allegations.
The Amended Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim; this dismissal counts as Braxton’s second § 1915(g) strike.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AUSA Purcell can be sued under § 1983 for actions in the prosecution	Purcell engaged in judge‑shopping and prosecutorial misconduct to increase Braxton’s sentence	Purcell’s acts were prosecutorial and performed within his official functions, entitling him to absolute immunity	Court: Purcell entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; claims dismissed
Whether court‑appointed/private counsel Szekely acted under color of state law for § 1983	Szekely conspired with Purcell and violated Braxton’s rights by pursuing strategies that led to worse sentencing outcomes	Szekely’s actions were traditional lawyer functions and thus not under color of state law absent proof of a conspiracy with government actors	Court: Szekely not acting under color of state law; § 1983 claims dismissed for failure to state a claim
Sufficiency of conspiracy allegations to overcome counsel immunity	Braxton alleges a conspiracy between Purcell and Szekely to thwart him	Defendants note allegations are conclusory and lack evidentiary support	Court: Allegations are conclusory, mirror prior unsuccessful motions, and fail to plead a plausible conspiracy; dismissed
Screening/in forma pauperis consequences under § 1915	Braxton seeks IFP and filing of complaint	Court must screen under §1915(e)(2) and warn re: §1915(g) strikes	Court granted IFP, dismissed complaint under §1915(e)(2), and warned this is second §1915(g) strike

Slump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity principle) (1978) (illustrating need for absolute judicial immunity)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutorial immunity) (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts intimately associated with judicial phase)
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (function, not title, controls immunity) (1988) (focus on functions performed to determine immunity)
Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914 (conspiracy and color of state law) (1984) (conspiracy can subject private actor to § 1983 but requires proof)
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (public defender not acting under color of state law) (1981) (traditional defense functions do not make counsel state actors)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard) (2009) (plausibility standard for complaint)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard) (2007) (requires factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim)
De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630 (Fourth Circuit pleading standard in §1915 screening) (2003) (§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) same as Rule 12(b)(6))
Deas v. Potts, 547 F.2d 800 (4th Cir. 1976) (private/court‑appointed counsel not acting under color of state law)
Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154 (4th Cir. 1980) (same principle regarding court‑appointed counsel)
Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782 (11th Cir. 1984) (conspiracy claims require more than naked assertion)