Clarence Corethers v. Atlas Bonding Co., 7 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Clarence Corethers v. Atlas Bonding Co., 7 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
55 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rodriguez Morant v. Moyer (ohsd, 2021-12-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rodriguez Morant v. Moyer
S.D. Ohio · 2021 · confidence medium
The Court so held without lengthy analysis, finding that the claim failed on the state action element: Corethers’s action may not survive in federal court, because he has not shown that the defendants’ conduct is fairly attributable to the state or that their actions were taken under ‘color of state law.’ Further, as properly found by the district court, the allegations must be construed as a complaint against a private actor, with any wrongdoing to be remedied pursuant to state law, rather than under federal or constitutional law.” Corethers, 7 F.3d at 232 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Duncan v. Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System
M.D. Tenn. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bunting, 7 F.3d 232 (estopping a government agency that confirmed an erroneous figure for the value of a lien on plaintiffs medical costs from later correcting the error to demand a higher lien payment from the plaintiff); Douglas v. U.S., 658 F.2d 445, 449 (6th Cir.1981) (es-topping the U.S. Navy from denying review of an administrative claim on the basis that the plaintiff did not submit nec essary documentation when the Navy had previously confirmed to plaintiffs counsel that this documentation. was not necessary); L.E.F., Inc. v. U.S., No. 95-cv-75068, 1997 WL 1037879 (E.D.Mich.
cited Cited "see" Mahmood v. Holder
2d Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kaur v. BIA, 413 7 F.3d 232 , 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Norman v. Sundance Spas, Inc.
W.D. Ky. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brock v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 791 F.Supp. 721 (E.D.Tenn.1992), summarily affirmed, 7 F.3d 232 (6th Cir.1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wilbourn v. Caravan Facilities Management, LLC
E.D. Mich. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Smith v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 926 F.2d 1470, 1480 (6th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Clarendon Ltd. v. Foster, 7 F.3d 232 , No. 92-5626, 1993 WL 339703, at *7 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 1993) (noting that the defaulted party “did not address any means by which he would dispute the allegations in the complaint other than to deny them generally” and “[a]lthough in an answer general denials normally are enough to raise a meritorious defense, the moving party on a motion to reopen a default must support its general denials with some underlying facts.�…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Missilmani v. Shiraz
E.D. Mich. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Smith v. Commissioner, 926 F.2d 1470, 1480 (6th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Clarendon Ltd. v. Foster, 7 F.3d 232 , No. 92-5626, 1993 WL 339703, at *7 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 1993) (noting that the defaulted party “did not address any means by which he would dispute the allegations in the complaint other than to deny them generally”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lindsey Hoyt v. Lane Construction Corporati
5th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g. , Brock v. Syntex Labs., Inc. , No. 92-5740, 7 F.3d 232 , 1993 WL 389946 , at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 1, 1993) ; Kinabrew v. Emco-Wheaton, Inc. , 936 F. Supp. 351 , 352 n.1 (M.D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Samuel Donald Hood II v. Samuel Donald Hood
6th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60, 62 (6th Cir.1979), ce rt. dismissed, 444 U.S. 986 , 100 S.Ct. 495 , 62 L.Ed.2d 415 (1979); see also Clarendon Ltd. v. Foster, 7 F.3d 232 (6th Cir.1993) (Table), 1993 WL 339703 at * *6 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clarence Corethers
v.
Atlas Bonding Company
93-3193.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Oct 7, 1993.
7 F.3d 232
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Unpublished

7 F.3d 232

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Clarence CORETHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ATLAS BONDING COMPANY, et al., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-3193.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 7, 1993.

Before: KEITH, NELSON and RYAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Clarence Corethers, pro se, appeals a district court order dismissing as frivolous his civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants include a bonding company and two of its employees. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

2

In his complaint, Corethers alleged that the defendants violated his civil rights by filing a complaint in the Ohio courts to recover on a bond posted on his behalf. The record shows that Corethers contracted with the defendant Atlas Bonding Company to supply bail bond, and, thereafter, Corethers failed to appear in court on the scheduled date, resulting in the forfeiture of the bond issued by Atlas. Corethers has submitted with his complaint a copy of the bonding company's complaint filed in state court seeking judgment against one Darnella Carlton, in the amount of $450 plus interest. In his complaint, Corethers mentions that Carlton is his sister and that she had contracted with the defendants on July 19, 1991, on his behalf. On appeal, Corethers, essentially repeats all of the allegations that he set forth in his original complaint. He also moves this court for the appointment of counsel, on appeal.

3

Under § 1915(d), a claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Supreme Court has held that a § 1915(d) dismissal is to be reviewed for an abuse of discretion, rather than de novo. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992). See also Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261-63 (6th Cir.1990). An abuse of discretion exists when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. In re Bendectin Litigation, 857 F.2d 290, 307 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1006 (1989).

4

Using a liberal standard of review because of the plaintiff's pro se status, the district court nevertheless properly dismissed this complaint as frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(d). Corethers's action may not survive in federal court, because he has not shown that the defendants' conduct is fairly attributable to the state or that their actions were taken under "color of state law." NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191 (1988); Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982); Simescu v. Emmet County Dep't of Social Servs., 942 F.2d 372, 374 (6th Cir.1991). Further, as properly found by the district court, the allegations must be construed as a complaint against a private actor, with any wrongdoing to be remedied pursuant to state law, rather than under federal or constitutional law. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981).

5

Accordingly, the motion for the appointment of counsel is hereby denied, and the district court's order dismissing this complaint as frivolous is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.