Cynthia Yoder v. MacMain Law Group LLC
691 F. App'x 59
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Cynthia Yoder and family sued East Coventry Township Police Department and officers; the District Court dismissed and this Court affirmed on appeal.
- While that appeal was pending, Yoder contacted defense counsel David MacMain seeking settlement; MacMain responded that the appeal and case were frivolous and threatened fee recovery.
- In September 2016 Yoder sued MacMain and his law firm under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various federal and state criminal statutes, alleging misconduct and criminal violations.
- The District Court dismissed Yoder’s complaint as legally frivolous, concluding it stated no viable legal claim against the private attorneys and that amendment would be futile; it denied leave to amend.
- Yoder appealed the dismissal; the Third Circuit exercised plenary review and summarily affirmed the District Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 liability attaches to MacMain and his firm | Yoder alleged MacMain violated federal rights and acted improperly in communications and representation | MacMain is a private attorney not acting under color of state law, so § 1983 does not apply | Court held attorneys are private actors and § 1983 does not apply to their traditional functions |
| Whether cited federal/state criminal statutes create a private civil cause of action | Yoder relied on criminal statutes (harassment, threats, witness intimidation) to support civil claims | Defendants argued criminal statutes do not confer private rights and private parties cannot enforce them | Court held criminal statutes cited do not create private causes of action and a private party cannot compel criminal enforcement |
| Whether dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate | Yoder sought to proceed despite defects; implied request to amend | Defendants argued claims were frivolous and could not be cured by amendment | Court held amendment would be futile and dismissal without leave to amend was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (elements of a § 1983 claim require state action)
- Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 184 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 1999) (private attorneys performing traditional functions are not state actors)
- Cent. Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (1994) (courts should not infer private causes of action from bare criminal statutes)
- Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83 (1981) (private parties have no right to compel criminal prosecutions)
- Winer Family Tr. v. Queen, 503 F.3d 319 (3d Cir. 2007) (district courts may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile)
- Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1990) (standard for reviewing frivolous dismissals)