Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Samuel E. Haley, Jr. v. Michael W. Walker, in Re Samuel E. Haley, Jr.
Citation: 751 F.2d 284Docket: 84-2015, Misc. 84-8120
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; December 28, 1984; Federal Appellate Court
Samuel E. Haley, Jr. appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against attorney Michael Walker, appointed to represent him in two prior § 1983 cases. Haley claims Walker’s negligence led to dismissals, denying him access to the courts. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, asserting that Walker, appointed by a federal court, acted under federal law rather than state law, making § 1983 inapplicable. The Eighth Circuit affirms this decision, noting that a Bivens-type claim also fails as Walker is not a federal officer. The court references similar cases affirming that appointed attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law for § 1983 or Bivens claims. Although Haley lacks recourse under these claims, he may pursue a malpractice suit against Walker under Missouri state tort law and suggest disciplinary actions against him. In a separate matter (Misc. No. 84-8120), Haley requests the recusal of Magistrate Ralston, citing alleged prejudice based on prior rulings and familiarity with an earlier case. The court finds no evidence of bias and denies the petition. Additionally, Haley seeks appointment of counsel for a pending § 1983 action against prison officials, which the district court has yet to rule upon, rendering this request premature and also denied.