green
Positive treatment
65.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dr. Jonathan Dillard v. Montgomery County Sheriff, et al.
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Parke Custis v. Richard Salter Phillips
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gabriel Burress v. Idaho State Trooper Rutland and Public Defender Carlos Rodrigues
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (federal criminal context).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bullock v. The City of Richmond
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bullock v. Weiss
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonnason v. State of Idaho
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS)Wright v. Long
Defense attorneys generally are not considered state 14 or federal government actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens Six Unknown Named 15 Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 389-97 (1971).2 See Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 16 1982) (a federal public defender was not a federal officer acting under color of federal law when 17 he represented the plaintiff in the federal criminal proceeding, relying on Bivens); see West v. 18 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (same for a § 1983 claim).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Najacque v. Smith
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bullock v. Weiss
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[A] public defender does not act under color of state 5 Mr. Bullock later has sections titled “purportedly liable under legal theory which should have been liable to me” (ECF No. 11, at 6-8), and “captioned sections - civil rights violation” (id. at 9); however, the Court does not recite those sections here because they are duplicative of his initial statement of the facts and claims. law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 10…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bosse v. Thompson
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (federal criminal context).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Boggs v. Classification Officer (s)
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sturgeon v. Welsh
See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982). 7.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McCoy v. King, et .
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Oelker v. State of Idaho
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reed v. Bizzaro
Ed. 2d 509 (1981) (a public defender "does not act under 9 color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel" to a criminal defendant); 10 see also Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (relying on Polk County to determine 11 that federal public defenders are not acting under color of federal law for purposes of Bivens action). 12 As previously noted here and in my Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3), plaintiff alleged 13 claims against defendants Bizzaro and Valladares are based on their roles as legal advocates (e.g., failure 14 to raise certa…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McCoy v. Clifford
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samperi v. Nagi
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (federal criminal context).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brooks v. Fender
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) 10 (citing analogous holding in Polk County, 454 U.S. at 318-19). 11 The above well established law leads the Court to find Plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed 12 against his state or federal public defenders and, for this reason, these claims must be dismissed. 13 IV.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Quinones v. Davis
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Parduhn v. Bonneville County
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
NaJacque v. Grandfield
See, e.g., Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Najacque v. Anderson
See, e.g., Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
NaJacque v. Anderson
See, e.g., Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Quinones v. Meskin
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Quinones v. Ponting
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. County of Sacramento
See Miranda, 319 F.3d at 468 ; Cox v. 27 Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982). 28 /// 1 As a purported alternative basis for attaching liability under § 1983, Plaintiff contends 2 Whisenand, Aye, Saria, and Rosenfeld are state actors because they acted in joint participation 3 with state officials in violating Plaintiff’s rights.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Spriestersbach v. State of Hawaii
He contends public defenders perform a private function that is traditionally performed by retained counsel. [Id. (quoting Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982)).] Cox, however, addressed a civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. Ivy Medical
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dillard v. United States Courts
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baker v. Clark
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hollomond v. Hadeed
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ahamad Atkins v. J. Gilbert
See Polk County, 454 U.S. at 325 ; Haley v. Walker, 751 F.2d 284, 285 (8th Cir. 1984) (applying Polk County to Bivens claim against federal defense attorney); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McPherson v. Zweig
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gomez v. Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Virginia
See, e.g., Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alexander v. State of Idaho
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. State of Idaho
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mayo v. Punter
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Petrunak v. Jill Krofta
See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 , 317–18 (1981) (public defender in state court does not act under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when defending client); Haley v. Walker, 751 F.2d 284, 285 (8th Cir. 1984) (applying Polk County to Bivens claim against federal defense attorney); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vigue v. Clarke
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Shoshone-Bannock Correctional Facility
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that “a public defender does not act under color of federal law in performing the … functions [of] a lawyer to an indigent defendant in a federal criminal proceeding”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Counseling Family Service IHS
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Justice Center
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that “a public defender does not act under color of federal law in performing the … functions [of] a lawyer to an indigent defendant in a federal criminal proceeding”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McPherson v. Fauquier County
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”’); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oliver v. Marcowitz
See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U .S. 312, 325 (1981) (holding that “a public defender does not act under color of state law [for purposes of liability under § 1983] when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding”); Haley v. Walker, 751 F.2d 284, 285 (8th Cir.1984) (“By analogy [to Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) ], an attorney appointed by a federal court is not a federal officer for purposes of a Bivens-type action.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir.1982) (a federal public defender may not be sued for m…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parker v. Maloney
See also Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231, 233 (6th Cir. 1968) (holding that a private attorney does not act under color of state law despite the fact he has been appointed by the court); Murphy v. Bloom, 443 F. App’x 668, 670 (3d Cir. 2011) (appointed counsel, “even though paid by the government, did not act under color of federal law for purposes of Bivens where he was performing traditional functions of counsel”), Richards v. Flynn, 263 F. App’x 496 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of Bivens action for legal malpractice brought against assistant federal defender b…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC)Webster v. Garrett
See Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 53 (1992); 10 Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 320-25 (1981); Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057, 1079 (9th 11 Cir. 2008); Miranda v. Clark Cty., Nev., 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); United 12 States v. De Gross, 960 F.2d 1433 , 1442 n.12 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc); see also Vermont v. 13 Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 91 (2009) (assigned public defender is ordinarily not considered a state 14 actor); Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Polk Cty. to determine 15 that a state-appointed guardian ad litem does not act under co…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shunn v. Benson
Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott v. Paisley
That is, the Court agrees with both Judge Johnston and Scott that federal public defenders do “not act under color of federal law” for purposes of a Bivens action; therefore, Scott’s claims against Ness and Hoovestal “suffer[] from a fatal jurisdictional defect which requires dismissal.” Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniels v. Said
See, e.g., Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pretty v. Efird
See, e.g., Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[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.”); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that private attorneys do not act under color of state or federal law when representing clients).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fred George COX, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Harry L. HELLERSTEIN, Assistant Federal Public Defender, James F. Hewitt, Federal Public Defender, Defendants-Appellees
v.
Harry L. HELLERSTEIN, Assistant Federal Public Defender, James F. Hewitt, Federal Public Defender, Defendants-Appellees
81-4397.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 27, 1982.
Fred George Cox, in pro per., Arthur W. Ruthenbeck, Blackmon, Wasserman, Blicker & Ruthenbeck, Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Wisdom, Duniway, Norris.
Cited by 75 opinions | Published
NORRIS, Circuit Judge:
In 1978, appellant Fred George Cox was convicted by a jury of aggravated armed bank robbery. His conviction was affirmed on appeal, and a petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. Appellee Harry L. Heller-stein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, represented Cox throughout trial and the appellate process.
In 1980, Cox filed a civil rights complaint alleging that Hellerstein, and appellee James F. Hewitt, Federal Public Defender, as Hellerstein’s supervisor, violated Cox’s federally-protected rights during the course of Hellerstein’s court-appointed representation of Cox. In his complaint, Cox alleged that Hellerstein was “ineffective, inadequate, incompetent, and unprofessional” as defense counsel. Cox alleged that Heller-stein failed to call witnesses who should have been called, worked for the prosecution to obtain a conviction, and divulged[*1099] confidential matters to the prosecution. [1] The district court granted Hellerstein’s motion to dismiss, and Cox appeals. We affirm on the ground that Polk County v. Dodson, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981) is controlling authority that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Cox’s civil rights action.
In Polk County v. Dodson, the Supreme Court held that a public defender does not act “under color of state law” when representing an indigent defendant in a state criminal proceeding. Accordingly, there was no jurisdictional basis for an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a Polk County public defender on a claim of inadequate representation of the plaintiff in an appeal of his state robbery conviction. Id. 102 S.Ct. at 448. The Court reasoned that a public defender does not act on behalf of the state, but rather serves the public by advancing the undivided interests of his client. “This is essentially a private function, traditionally filled by retained counsel, for which state office and authority are not needed.” Id. 102 S.Ct. at 450.
Here, Cox has attempted to plead a Bivens 2 action which requires him to plead and prove that Hellerstein was a federal officer acting under color of federal law when he represented Cox in the federal criminal proceeding. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 389-397, 91 S.Ct. at 2001-2005. Thus the only difference between this case and Polk County is that one is a Bivens action against a federal officer and the other a § 1983 action against a state officer. In either case, action under color of law is a jurisdictional requisite. If a public defender does not act under color of state law in representing an indigent defendant in a state criminal proceeding, it follows that a public defender does not act under color of federal law in performing the identical functions as a lawyer to an indigent defendant in a federal criminal proceeding. Accordingly, Polk County compels us to conclude Cox’s Bivens action suffers from a fatal jurisdictional defect which requires dismissal. [3]
AFFIRMED.
1
. In a separate action, Cox sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 from his 1979 conviction of armed bank robbery, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was dismissed on June 3, 1982 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. United States v. Cox, No. CR 78-0399-WHO.
2
. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
3
. Since we hold that a public defender does not act under color of law, we need not reach the issue whether a public defender is entitled to the same absolute immunity as judges and prosecutors. See Polk County v. Dodson, - U.S. -, n.4, 102 S.Ct. 445, 449 n.4, 70 L.Ed.2d 509.