Full text
Victor Frank SZIJARTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles F. LEGEMAN, Defendant-Appellee

Loading…
Opinion
466 F.2d 864 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 24, 1972
Full text
Victor Frank SZIJARTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles F. LEGEMAN, Defendant-Appellee
D. Nevada · Dec 30, 2024
D. Arizona · Oct 8, 2024
E.D. California · Sep 4, 2024
W.D. Washington · Jul 23, 2024
D. Arizona · Jan 12, 2024
D. Nevada · Jan 11, 2024
E.D. California · Oct 30, 2023
Parentheticals
holding that “an attorney, 19 whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.”
holding that a claim of ineffective assistance of a 15 retained trial attorney was not a cognizable claim under § 1983 because “an attorney, whether 16 retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.”
holding that a claim of 10 ineffective assistance of a retained trial attorney was not a cognizable claim under § 1983 because 11 “an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.”
holding that a claim of 14 ineffective assistance of a retained trial attorney was not a cognizable claim under § 1983 because 15 “an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law.”
holding attorney 25 representing criminal defendant, “whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
holding attorney representing criminal defendant, “whether retained or 17 appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
holding attorney representing 23 criminal defendant, “whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law”
noting that ineffectiveness claims are not cognizable under Section 1983 because “an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’ state law”
Attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act 2 “under color of state law” pursuant to § 1983
Attorney, whether retained or appointed, does 13 not act “under color of state law” pursuant to § 1983
(PC) Del Rosario v. Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles
In 24 regard to section 1983, “an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color 25 of’ state law”
Attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act “under color 22 of state law” pursuant to § 1983