COY v. LOWE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION BRAIDAN C. COY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:21-cv-00027-JPH-DLP ) RAYMOND T. LOWE, ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER DISMISSING CASE On January 28, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff, Braidan Coy's, complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a plausible claim. Dkt. 6. The Court gave Mr. Coy through March 1, 2021 to show cause why Judgment consistent with that Order should not issue. Id. at 4. Mr. Coy has responded, dkt. 8, but has not addressed the deficiencies explained in the Court's screening order. See dkt. 6. Specifically, Mr. Coy has not demonstrated that Raymond Lowe was acting under the color of state law.

In his response, Mr. Coy alleges that "when the state appointed Mr. Lowe . . . he was ultimately granted full or some authority or power . . . which was only given because of a requirement by state law [and] he participated in actions committed under color of state law." Dkt. 8 at 4. However, as discussed in the Court's screening order, dkt. 6, "a public defender does not act under the color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding." Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324 (1981).

Mr. Coy addresses this by citing Smith v. Bacon, 699 F.2d 434, 436 (8th Cir. 1983) for the proposition that "if a conspiracyis adequately pleaded, the court appointed attorneys may be regarded as acting under color of law." Dkt.

8 at 8-9. However, Smith v. Bacon is distinguishable because Mr. Coy has not allegeda conspiracy. The plaintiffs in Smith named as defendants two judges and several public defenders. Smith, 699 F.2d at 435. Here, Mr. Coy has named only one individual defendant, Mr. Lowe, and has not adequately pleaded a conspiracy. See dkt. 1.

Furthermore, this Court's screening order did not find that "public defenders never act under the color of state law," see Smith, 699 F.2d at 436, but rather that "a public defender does not act under the color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant ina criminal proceeding." Polk County, 454 U.S. at 324 (emphasis added).

Mr. Coy's claims are therefore DISMISSED with prejudice. See Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 704-05 (7th Cir. 2011). Finaljudgment willissue by separate entry.

SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/17/2021 Slam ruck lanl James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: BRAIDAN C. COY 278668 WABASH VALLEY - CF WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels 6908 S. Old US Hwy 41 P.O. Box 1111 CARLISLE, IN 47838