Polk Cty. v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public defender does not act 'under color of state law' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.
Facts:
- Russell Richard Dodson was convicted of robbery in an Iowa state court.
- For his appeal, the Polk County Offender Advocate’s Office, a public defender's office, assigned one of its full-time attorneys, Martha Shepard, to represent him.
- After investigating the case, Shepard concluded that Dodson's appellate claims were wholly frivolous.
- Shepard filed a motion with the Iowa Supreme Court seeking permission to withdraw as counsel, attaching a brief outlining potential arguments and explaining why they were meritless.
- Dodson opposed Shepard's motion to withdraw.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted Shepard's motion and subsequently dismissed Dodson's appeal.
Procedural Posture:
- Russell Richard Dodson filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against public defender Martha Shepard and Polk County in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, dismissed the complaint, holding that Shepard did not act 'under color of state law'.
- Dodson appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the public defender, as a county employee, did act 'under color of state law'.
- The petitioners, Polk County and the individual defendants, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public defender act 'under color of state law' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when performing traditional functions as counsel to an indigent defendant in a state criminal proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. A public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding. The court's reasoning is primarily functional: a public defender's role is not to advance the state's interests but to serve as an adversary to the state, with an undivided loyalty to the client. This adversarial function is essentially private, mirroring that of a privately retained attorney, and is not dependent on state authority. The mere fact of state employment is insufficient, as the state has a constitutional obligation under Gideon v. Wainwright to provide independent counsel, free from state control. Furthermore, a lawyer's ethical duty to withdraw from frivolous appeals is a professional obligation applicable to all attorneys, not an action taken on behalf of the state.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
No. The government's constitutional obligation is to provide a professionally qualified advocate who is wholly independent of governmental control. An attorney's obligations to the client are defined by professional codes of ethics, not by the government entity that provides their compensation. These codes mandate the exercise of independent professional judgment. Therefore, Shepard's decision to withdraw from a frivolous case was not a state action, but an action consistent with the highest traditions of the legal profession.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. A public defender, as a full-time state employee working in an office funded and regulated by the state to fulfill a state obligation, acts under color of state law. The majority's functional test is a departure from precedent, which has focused on the employment relationship. The state's pervasive involvement in the public defender system, including funding and caseload management, means the defender is not truly independent. This case is indistinguishable from Estelle v. Gamble, where a state-employed prison doctor was found to be a state actor despite their independent professional obligations. The majority's creation of a distinction between a public defender's 'traditional' and 'administrative' functions is artificial and will be difficult to implement.
Analysis:
This case establishes a functional approach for determining whether a state employee acts 'under color of state law' for § 1983 purposes, moving beyond mere employment status. By carving out the traditional, adversarial functions of a public defender, the Court effectively immunizes them from § 1983 liability for actions related to legal representation, such as strategy or case evaluation. The decision channels claims of deficient performance by public defenders into state malpractice suits or habeas corpus proceedings alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, rather than federal civil rights litigation. This ruling significantly narrows the scope of § 1983 liability for public defenders while leaving open the possibility of suits for non-representational activities, such as administrative or policy-making functions.
