Judy Ellen Holbird v. Debra Armstrong-Wright

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming dismissal of section 1983 “joint activity” claim because, among other things, plaintiff’s allusion to conspiracy was insufficient to state claim
• finding conduct of counsel, whether retained or appointed, does not constitute state action
• “[t]he conduct of counsel, either retained or appointed, in representing clients, does not constitute action under color of state law for purposes of section 1983 violations”
• “[t]he conduct of counsel, either retained or appointed, in representing clients, does not constitute action under color of state law of purposes of section 1983 violations”
• “[t]he conduct of counsel, either retained or appointed, in representing clients, does not constitute action under color of state law of purposes of section 1983 violations”
• complaint subject to dismissal under § 1915(d) if allegations of conspiracy are inadequate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).