Mickey Castillo v. Matthew Kelly
690 F. App'x 96
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Mickey Castillo sued his 2013 conflict counsel, Mathew P. Kelly, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and raised a state-law malpractice claim, alleging Kelly lacked authority to represent him and destroyed his legal papers.
- Castillo amended his complaint to add John and Jane Doe defendants, alleging failure to supervise/train Kelly and that his sentence was non-appealable.
- Castillo sought leave to proceed IFP; the magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and recommended dismissal as failing to state a claim, finding amendment futile.
- The District Court adopted the R&R and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, declining to stay for Castillo’s pending habeas petition and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim or appoint counsel.
- Castillo appealed. The Third Circuit reviewed the § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private defense counsel is a state actor for § 1983 liability | Kelly acted under color of state law in representing Castillo and thus violated due process and destroyed papers | Kelly is a private lawyer performing traditional functions and not a state actor | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to allege facts showing Kelly was a state actor; § 1983 claims fail |
| Whether Doe defendants can be liable for failure to supervise/train Kelly | Does allowed Kelly to "go rogue" and had duty to oversee him | Does are not state actors; supervision alone does not create liability | Dismissed: no allegation that Does were state actors; respondeat superior is insufficient |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice and refusal to stay pending habeas was abuse of discretion | Castillo argued dismissal with prejudice and no stay was improper | District Court exercised discretion to dismiss with prejudice and not stay; procedural rulings proper | Affirmed: appellate court found no abuse of discretion |
| Whether district court abused discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction or appoint counsel | Castillo sought retention of state-law claim and appointment of counsel | District Court appropriately declined supplemental jurisdiction and denied appointment | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (standard of review for § 1915(e)(2) dismissals)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints must be construed liberally)
- James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2012) (court ignores legal conclusions and rote recitals on Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility and dismissal of conclusory allegations)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (tests for state action)
- Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 184 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 1999) (private attorneys performing traditional functions are not state actors solely by being officers of the court)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) (supervisory liability cannot be imposed solely on respondeat superior)