Vann v. Katze
1:20-cv-00361
D.N.M.Jun 24, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Rayvell Vann, a federal prisoner, sued his former criminal-defense attorney Margaret Katze claiming Sixth Amendment and due-process violations for failing to challenge a Section 851 sentence enhancement; he sought $20 million.
- Vann previously filed a civil-rights action against the same counsel and multiple §2255 motions challenging his conviction and sentence; earlier actions were dismissed on the merits or as successive.
- Vann was convicted in federal case CR 12-00966 of possession with intent to distribute PCP and codeine and sentenced to 180 months.
- Vann styled his complaint under federal-question jurisdiction (42 U.S.C. § 1983 / 28 U.S.C. § 1331) and the court construed possible Bivens claims as well.
- The District Court concluded Katze, as defense counsel, did not act under color of state or federal law and therefore could not be sued under § 1983 or Bivens; additionally, any successful claim would necessarily invalidate Vann’s sentence.
- The Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim and also dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for Vann’s failure to comply with a court order to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of § 1983 against defense counsel | Vann alleged constitutional violations by counsel and invoked § 1983 | Katze (and the court): private/federal defense counsel not a state actor | Dismissed — counsel not acting under color of state law; § 1983 unavailable |
| Availability of Bivens against appointed counsel | Vann’s claims could be construed as Bivens | Katze: appointed counsel is not a federal officer | Dismissed — Bivens unavailable against defense counsel |
| Application of Heck v. Humphrey to claims seeking damages for sentence enhancement | Vann seeks damages for alleged wrongful sentence enhancement | Court/defense: success would imply invalidity of conviction/sentence | Dismissed — barred by Heck because relief would invalidate sentence |
| Dismissal for failure to comply with court orders | Vann failed to timely pay filing fee or file IFP despite extensions | Court: noncompliance justifies dismissal under Rule 41(b) | Dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausible claim required)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (creates implied damages action against federal officers)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (claims that would invalidate conviction/sentence are barred until conviction is overturned)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (Heck bar applies to equitable relief that would invalidate a conviction)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (state-action test for § 1983)
- Allred v. McCaughey, [citation="257 F. App'x 91"] (appointed federal defense counsel not a federal officer for Bivens purposes)
- McCarty v. Gilchrist, 646 F.3d 1281 (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (requirements and limits of liberal construction for pro se complaints)
- Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dept., 195 F.3d 553 (application of Heck doctrine in § 1983 context)