Kunz v. Brazill, 1:11-cv-00930

Kunz, a incarcerated pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights complaint in forma pauperis and sought appointment of counsel.
Kunz challenges his state conviction, alleging defense counsel Brazill and ADA Randel failed to have a proper examination/report on the alleged sexual assault.
Plaintiff asserts false arrest and wrongful imprisonment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks monetary damages and release from confinement.
The court performs initial screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, noting Kunz meets the financial criteria but must state a cognizable claim.
The complaint also references a Jane Doe defendant; docket notes indicate Doe is a sealed defendant named later in the case.
The court discusses Heck v. Humphrey and its applicability to monetary claims that would invalidate a criminal conviction or confinement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the § 1983 claim is cognizable given Heck.	Kunz asserts constitutional violations justify damages/release.	Claims are barred by Heck because success would undermine the conviction.	Dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim under Heck.
Whether Randel is shielded by prosecutorial immunity.	Randel violated rights by withholding/poor handling of evidence.	Prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for prosecutorial functions.	Randel dismissed due to prosecutorial immunity.
Whether Brazill can be liable as a private attorney acting under color of state law.	Brazill denied ineffective assistance of counsel.	Private attorneys are not state actors merely by license or appointment; § 1983 unlikely.	Brazill dismissed; private attorney not a state actor.
Whether Jane Doe acted under color of state law to violate Kunz's rights.	Doe accused Kunz of rape; claims implicate § 1983.	Private actions require state action; no facts showing Doe acted under color of state law.	Jane Doe dismissed for lack of state action.
Whether the court should appoint counsel given the likelihood of merit.	Indigent should receive counsel if meritorious.	Appointment denied if complaint is unlikely to proceed on the merits.	Appointment of counsel denied as moot; complaint recommended to be dismissed.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court 1989) (frivolous or malicious claims may be dismissed sua sponte)
Wilkerson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court 2005) (Heck-like approach to ongoing confinement claims)
Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d 19 (Second Circuit 1999) (pleading must show plausible basis for relief)
Dory v. Ryan, 25 F.3d 81 (Second Circuit 1994) (prosecutorial immunity covers duties related to prosecution)
Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62 (Second Circuit 1997) (private attorneys are not state actors by virtue of appointment)
Amaker v. Weiner, 179 F.3d 48 (Second Circuit 1999) (private attorney not a state actor for § 1983 purposes)