polk
county
dodson
argued
october
decided
december
respondent
brought
suit
federal
district
petitioners
polk
county
offender
advocate
board
supervisors
martha
shepard
attorney
offender
advocate
office
factual
basis
lawsuit
respondent
alleged
shepard
assigned
represent
appeal
criminal
conviction
iowa
failed
represent
adequately
since
moved
permission
withdraw
counsel
ground
respondent
claim
legally
frivolous
iowa
granted
shepard
motion
dismissed
respondent
appeal
district
respondent
alleged
shepard
actions
violated
certain
constitutional
rights
establish
shepard
acted
color
state
law
jurisdictional
requisite
action
respondent
relied
employment
county
district
dismissed
claims
petitioners
appeals
reversed
held
public
defender
act
color
state
law
performing
lawyer
traditional
functions
counsel
indigent
defendant
state
criminal
proceeding
based
activities
complaint
shepard
must
dismissed
pp
moment
shepard
assignment
represent
respondent
relationship
became
identical
existing
lawyer
client
except
source
shepard
payment
legal
system
posits
defense
lawyer
best
serves
public
acting
state
behalf
concert
rather
advancing
undivided
interest
client
essentially
private
function
state
office
authority
needed
pp
cases
assumed
doctors
serving
supervisory
capacities
state
institutions
held
liable
controlling
donaldson
estelle
gamble
distinguished
pp
although
employment
relationship
state
public
defender
relevant
factor
insufficient
establish
public
defender
acts
color
state
law
within
meaning
public
defender
amenable
administrative
direction
sense
state
employees
equally
important
state
constitutional
obligation
respect
professional
independence
public
defenders
engages
pp
ethical
obligation
lawyer
whether
privately
retained
publicly
appointed
clog
courts
frivolous
motions
appeals
respondent
legitimate
complaint
shepard
failed
prosecute
frivolous
appeal
behalf
pp
respondent
alleged
unconstitutional
action
polk
county
offender
advocate
board
supervisors
extent
claims
rest
respondent
superior
theory
liability
fail
present
claim
constitutional
tort
actionable
described
bald
allegations
shepard
injured
respondent
acting
pursuant
administrative
rules
procedures
county
retains
maintains
advocates
law
school
numerous
occasions
moved
withdraw
appeals
convictions
respondent
failed
allege
administrative
policy
arguably
cause
violation
rights
sixth
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
official
policy
withdrawal
frivolous
cases
violate
constitution
pp
powell
delivered
opinion
burger
brennan
white
marshall
rehnquist
stevens
joined
burger
filed
concurring
opinion
post
blackmun
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
norman
jesse
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
dan
johnston
john
hudson
appointment
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
edwin
kneedler
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
brief
acting
solicitor
general
wallace
acting
assistant
attorney
general
turner
elinor
hadley
stillman
walter
barnett
louise
lerner
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
paul
jones
mollie
raskind
minnesota
state
public
defender
richard
wilson
howard
eisenberg
national
legal
aid
defender
association
et
al
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
question
case
whether
public
defender
acts
color
state
law
representing
indigent
defendant
state
criminal
proceeding
case
arose
respondent
russell
richard
dodson
filed
pro
se
complaint
district
southern
district
iowa
dodson
brought
action
federal
factual
basis
lawsuit
dodson
alleged
martha
shepard
attorney
polk
county
offender
advocate
office
failed
represent
adequately
appeal
iowa
employee
county
shepard
assigned
represent
dodson
appeal
conviction
robbery
inquiring
case
however
moved
permission
withdraw
counsel
ground
dodson
claims
wholly
frivolous
shepard
accompanied
motion
affidavit
explaining
conclusion
also
filed
memorandum
summarizing
dodson
claims
supporting
legal
arguments
november
iowa
granted
motion
withdraw
dismissed
dodson
appeal
complaint
district
respondent
alleged
shepard
actions
especially
motion
withdraw
deprived
right
counsel
subjected
cruel
unusual
punishment
denied
due
process
law
sought
injunctive
relief
well
damages
amount
establish
shepard
acted
color
state
law
jurisdictional
requisite
action
dodson
relied
employment
county
dodson
also
sued
polk
county
polk
county
offender
advocate
polk
county
board
supervisors
alleged
offender
advocate
board
supervisors
established
rules
procedures
shepard
bound
follow
handling
criminal
appeals
district
dismissed
dodson
claims
defendants
supp
held
relevant
actions
shepard
occurred
color
state
law
canvassing
leading
authorities
reasoned
public
defender
owes
duty
undivided
loyalty
client
public
defender
therefore
sued
agent
state
district
dismissed
offender
advocate
suit
theory
also
held
dodson
complaint
failed
allege
requisite
personal
involvement
state
claim
polk
county
board
supervisors
appeals
eighth
circuit
reversed
like
district
assumed
public
defender
owed
client
responsibility
attorney
view
however
dispositive
point
iowa
offender
advocates
employees
county
merely
creature
state
whether
public
defender
received
instructions
county
officials
beside
point
public
defenders
receive
power
selected
clients
employed
county
represent
certain
class
clients
likely
little
choice
selecting
lawyer
defend
holding
issue
recognized
decision
conflicted
holdings
number
courts
appeals
reasoning
dodson
pro
se
complaint
liberally
construed
also
ordered
reinstatement
claims
offender
advocate
board
supervisors
question
involvement
left
factual
development
district
addition
ordered
dodson
given
opportunity
remand
state
claim
county
greater
specificity
finally
rejected
argument
public
defender
enjoy
immunity
provided
judges
prosecutors
held
defendants
entitled
defense
good
faith
absolute
immunity
one
member
panel
filed
dissent
dissent
argued
person
acts
color
state
law
exercising
powers
created
authority
state
case
reasoned
alleged
wrongs
made
possible
defendant
public
defender
essence
complaint
asserted
ordinary
malpractice
claim
equally
maintainable
retained
attorney
appointed
counsel
dissent
also
argued
public
defender
entitled
absolute
immunity
suit
granted
certiorari
resolve
division
among
courts
appeals
whether
public
defender
acts
color
state
law
providing
representation
indigent
client
reverse
ii
classic
held
person
acts
color
state
law
exercising
power
possessed
virtue
state
law
made
possible
wrongdoer
clothed
authority
state
law
case
offender
advocate
polk
county
assigned
martha
shepard
represent
russell
dodson
appeal
criminal
conviction
assignment
entailed
functions
obligations
way
dependent
state
authority
moment
appointment
shepard
became
dodson
lawyer
dodson
became
shepard
client
except
source
payment
relationship
became
identical
existing
lawyer
client
lawyer
undertaken
representation
accused
duties
obligations
whether
lawyer
privately
retained
appointed
serving
legal
aid
defender
program
aba
standards
criminal
justice
ed
within
context
legal
system
duties
defense
lawyer
personal
counselor
advocate
often
said
lawyers
officers
courts
appeals
agreed
lawyer
representing
client
virtue
officer
state
actor
color
state
law
within
meaning
system
defense
lawyer
characteristically
opposed
designated
representatives
state
system
assumes
adversarial
testing
ultimately
advance
public
interest
truth
fairness
posits
defense
lawyer
best
serves
public
acting
behalf
state
concert
rather
advancing
undivided
interest
client
essentially
private
function
traditionally
filled
retained
counsel
state
office
authority
needed
iii
respondent
argues
public
defender
employment
relationship
state
rather
function
determine
whether
acts
color
state
law
take
different
view
arguing
employment
relationship
establishes
public
defender
acts
color
state
law
dodson
relies
heavily
two
cases
assumed
physicians
whose
relationship
patients
traditionally
depended
state
authority
held
liable
see
donaldson
estelle
gamble
cases
argues
analytically
identical
one
like
physicians
estelle
public
defender
paid
state
like
institutionalized
patients
cases
indigent
convict
unable
choose
professional
render
traditionally
private
services
factors
argued
establish
public
defender
like
physicians
state
hospitals
act
color
state
law
amenable
suit
view
estelle
distinguishable
case
involved
claims
psychiatrist
served
superintendent
state
mental
hospital
although
physician
traditionally
private
obligations
patients
sued
capacity
state
custodian
administrator
unlike
lawyer
administrator
state
hospital
owes
duty
undivided
loyalty
patients
contrary
function
protect
interest
public
well
wards
similarly
estelle
involved
physician
medical
director
texas
department
corrections
also
chief
medical
officer
prison
hospital
saw
patients
custodial
well
medical
capacity
custodian
supervisory
functions
doctors
estelle
faced
employer
different
posture
public
defender
institutional
physicians
assume
obligation
mission
state
institution
attempts
achieve
public
defender
different
argued
dissenting
opinion
appeals
functions
public
defender
enter
guilty
pleas
move
suppress
state
evidence
object
evidence
trial
state
witnesses
make
closing
arguments
behalf
defendants
adversarial
functions
find
peculiarly
difficult
detect
color
state
law
activities
despite
public
defender
obligation
represent
clients
state
dodson
argues
appeals
concluded
status
public
defender
differs
materially
defense
lawyers
public
defenders
paid
state
argued
subject
supervision
persons
interest
unrelated
indigent
clients
although
employment
relationship
certainly
relevant
factor
find
insufficient
establish
public
defender
acts
color
state
law
within
meaning
first
public
defender
amenable
administrative
direction
sense
employees
state
administrative
legislative
decision
undoubtedly
influence
way
public
defender
work
state
decisions
may
determine
quality
law
library
size
caseload
defense
lawyer
nature
function
servant
administrative
superior
held
standards
competence
integrity
private
lawyer
see
moore
public
defender
works
canons
professional
responsibility
mandate
exercise
independent
judgment
behalf
client
lawyer
shall
permit
person
recommends
employs
pays
render
legal
services
another
direct
regulate
professional
judgment
rendering
legal
services
dr
aba
code
professional
responsibility
second
equally
important
constitutional
obligations
state
respect
professional
independence
public
defenders
engages
decision
gideon
wainwright
established
right
state
criminal
defendants
guiding
hand
counsel
every
step
proceedings
quoting
powell
alabama
implicit
concept
guiding
hand
assumption
counsel
free
state
control
fair
trial
unless
accused
receives
services
effective
independent
advocate
see
gideon
wainwright
supra
holloway
arkansas
least
absence
pleading
proof
contrary
therefore
assume
polk
county
employed
public
defenders
satisfy
state
obligations
gideon
wainwright
attempted
control
action
manner
inconsistent
principles
gideon
rests
respondent
urges
different
view
public
defender
relationships
clients
state
whatever
ethical
obligations
public
defenders
argues
characteristically
extend
clients
undivided
loyalty
tendered
privately
retrained
attorneys
support
argument
dodson
notes
public
defender
moved
dismissed
case
clients
wishes
dodson
claims
suffered
prejudice
act
insists
action
taken
privately
retained
attorney
dodson
argument
assumes
private
lawyer
borne
professional
obligations
refuse
prosecute
frivolous
appeal
error
claiming
public
defender
peculiarly
subject
divided
loyalties
dodson
confuses
lawyer
ethical
obligations
judicial
system
allegiance
tot
eh
adversary
interest
state
criminal
prosecution
although
defense
attorney
duty
advance
colorable
claims
defenses
cannons
professional
ethics
impose
limits
permissible
advocacy
obligations
lawyer
whether
privately
retained
publicly
appointed
clog
courts
frivolous
motions
appeals
dodson
legitimate
complaint
lawyer
refused
matter
empirical
fact
may
may
true
professional
obligations
withdraw
frivolous
appeals
invoked
disproportionate
frequency
cases
involving
indigent
prisoners
recent
burgeoning
postconviction
remedies
undoubtedly
subjected
legal
system
unprecedented
strains
including
increased
demands
legal
assistance
state
iowa
responded
authorizing
provision
greater
representation
constitution
requires
system
public
defenders
contemplates
extension
legal
assistance
various
tiers
postconviction
review
incorporating
general
ethical
limitation
counsel
withdraw
frivolous
cases
context
dodson
argues
public
defenders
making
withdrawal
decision
viewed
indigent
prisoners
hostile
state
actors
think
little
justification
view
indeed
widely
held
iv
concluding
shepard
act
color
state
law
exercising
independent
professional
judgment
criminal
proceeding
suggest
public
defender
never
acts
role
branti
finkel
example
found
public
defender
acted
making
hiring
firing
decisions
behalf
state
may
although
question
present
case
public
defender
also
act
color
state
law
performing
certain
administrative
possibly
investigative
functions
cf
imbler
pachtman
course
intimate
views
public
defender
liability
malpractice
appropriate
case
state
tort
law
see
ferri
ackerman
respect
dodson
claims
shepard
decide
public
defender
act
color
state
law
performing
lawyer
traditional
function
counsel
defendant
criminal
proceeding
based
activities
complaint
shepard
must
dismissed
complaint
district
dodson
also
asserted
claims
offender
advocate
polk
county
polk
county
board
supervisors
section
support
claim
based
respondent
superior
theory
liability
monell
new
york
city
dept
social
services
extent
dodson
claims
rest
basis
fail
present
federal
claim
appeals
apparently
read
dodson
pro
se
complaint
susceptible
another
construction
found
actionable
claim
bald
allegation
shepard
injure
acting
pursuant
administrative
rules
procedures
handling
criminal
appeals
employers
therefore
responsible
actions
also
noted
allegation
respondent
complaint
county
retains
maintains
advocates
law
school
numerous
occasions
moved
withdraw
appeals
criminal
convictions
question
whether
either
allegation
describes
constitutional
tort
actionable
conclude
monell
new
york
city
dept
social
service
supra
held
official
policy
must
moving
force
constitutional
violation
order
establish
liability
government
body
see
rizzo
goode
general
allegation
administrative
negligence
fails
state
constitutional
claim
cognizable
case
respondent
fails
allege
policy
arguably
violated
rights
sixth
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
assert
assistant
public
defenders
refused
prosecute
certain
appeals
grounds
frivolity
policy
withdrawal
frivolous
cases
violate
constitution
anders
california
respondent
argued
existence
impressible
policy
pursuant
withdrawals
might
occurred
respondent
asserted
personally
deprived
sixth
amendment
right
effective
counsel
however
failed
allege
deprivation
caused
constitutionally
forbidden
rule
procedure
dodson
complaint
viewed
standards
cases
even
light
sympathetic
pleading
requirements
applicable
pro
se
petitioners
see
haines
kerner
per
curiam
believe
alleged
unconstitutional
action
offender
advocate
polk
county
polk
county
board
supervisors
accordingly
claims
must
dismissed
vi
reasons
stated
opinion
decision
appeals
reversed
footnotes
pursuant
rule
iowa
rules
appellate
procedure
provides
pertinent
part
counsel
appointed
represent
convicted
indigent
defendant
appeal
convinced
conscientious
investigation
trial
transcript
appeal
frivolous
good
conscience
proceed
appeal
may
move
writing
withdraw
motion
must
accompanied
brief
referring
anything
record
might
arguably
support
appeal
iowa
procedure
similar
prescribed
anders
california
dodson
also
asserted
pendent
claims
malpractice
breach
oral
promise
prosecute
appeal
courts
appeals
seventh
eighth
circuits
held
public
defenders
act
color
state
law
representation
indigent
defendants
see
robinson
bergstrom
public
defender
acts
color
state
law
absolutely
immune
suit
case
fifth
tenth
circuits
held
see
slavin
curry
modified
grounds
espinoza
rogers
third
ninth
circuit
supported
latter
position
dicta
cases
held
public
defenders
entitled
absolute
immunity
suit
see
brown
joseph
cert
denied
miller
barilla
petition
certiorari
case
also
presented
immunity
question
petitioners
asked
us
decide
whether
public
defenders
entitled
absolute
immunity
judges
see
bradley
fisher
wall
prosecutors
see
imbler
pachtman
hold
public
defender
act
color
state
law
performing
traditional
functions
counsel
criminal
defendant
need
reach
immunity
issue
reiterated
definition
subsequent
cases
see
screws
monroe
pape
see
burger
counsel
prosecution
defense
roles
minimum
standards
crim
view
public
defender
obligations
client
accepted
virtually
every
considered
issue
see
espinoza
rogers
supra
brown
joseph
supra
see
skolnick
martin
dotlich
kane
true
even
cases
private
attorney
assigned
represent
indigent
defendant
see
page
sharpe
hall
quillen
mulligan
schlachter
french
corrigan
cert
denied
barnes
dorsey
ferri
ackerman
primary
office
performed
appointed
counsel
parallels
office
privately
retained
counsel
although
true
appointed
counsel
serves
pursuant
statutory
authorization
furtherance
federal
interest
insuring
effective
representation
criminal
defendant
duty
public
large
except
general
way
principal
responsibility
serve
undivided
interests
client
indeed
indispensable
element
effective
performance
responsibilities
ability
act
independently
government
oppose
adversary
litigation
although
lawyers
generally
licensed
officials
government
virtue
lawyers
griffiths
see
rule
adopted
verbatim
dr
iowa
code
professional
responsibility
lawyers
printed
iowa
rules
rule
mandatory
character
lawyer
violated
subject
disciplinary
action
iowa
courts
see
sanchez
murphy
supp
personal
relationship
established
deputy
public
defender
defendant
one
public
defender
control
cannons
professional
ethics
require
deputy
man
irrespective
advice
pressures
others
deputy
public
defender
realistic
sense
fulfillment
professional
responsibilities
servant
public
defender
independent
officer
relying
cases
burton
wilmington
parking
authority
moose
lodge
irvis
respondent
claims
state
funding
criminal
defenses
makes
joint
participant
enterprise
locked
symbiotic
relationship
individual
public
defenders
urges
us
hold
theory
public
defenders
act
color
state
law
within
meaning
burton
moose
lodge
question
whether
state
action
present
case
question
whether
public
defender
concededly
employee
county
acted
color
state
law
representation
russell
dodson
although
sometimes
treated
question
identical
see
price
need
consider
relationship
order
decide
case
factual
inquiry
professional
obligations
functions
public
defender
persuades
us
shepard
joint
participant
state
representing
respondent
acting
color
state
law
dissenting
opinion
post
describes
public
defender
state
employee
working
office
fully
funded
extensively
regulate
state
acting
fulfill
state
obligation
dissent
reasons
description
purposes
determining
color
state
law
question
function
performed
public
defender
immaterial
difference
respect
dissent
contends
administrative
functions
see
branti
finkel
lawyer
traditional
functions
counsel
defendant
criminal
proceeding
view
ignores
basic
distinction
latter
capacity
public
defender
acting
behalf
state
state
adversary
see
aba
standards
criminal
justice
commentary
ed
lawyer
whether
assigned
part
legal
aid
defender
staff
privately
retained
paid
duty
take
steps
present
dilatory
frivolous
motions
actions
unfounded
according
lawyer
informed
professional
judgment
contrary
unprofessional
conduct
aba
standing
committee
ethics
professional
responsibility
informal
opinion
obligation
take
criminal
appeal
reprinted
informal
ethics
opinions
like
lawyer
private
counsel
ethically
clog
courts
frivolous
motions
appeals
see
also
nickols
gagnon
see
aba
standards
criminal
justice
commentary
ed
noting
lawyers
assigned
indigent
prisoners
often
put
pressure
engage
dilatory
frivolous
tactics
see
iowa
code
ch
public
defender
appointed
pursuant
state
statute
directed
prosecute
appeals
remedies
conviction
considers
interest
justice
views
unfortunate
adversary
system
function
best
lawyer
enjoys
wholehearted
confidence
client
confidence
improved
creating
disincentive
state
provide
postconviction
assistance
indigent
prisoners
impose
liability
lawyer
performance
traditional
functions
counsel
criminal
defendant
precisely
effect
addition
possible
relief
state
tort
law
indigent
prisoner
retains
right
initiate
state
federal
habeas
corpus
proceedings
innocent
prisoner
wrongly
incarcerated
result
ineffective
malicious
counsel
normally
important
form
judicial
relief
disturb
theory
cases
brought
public
defenders
prosecuted
extorting
payment
clients
friends
relatives
color
law
see
senak
cert
denied
chief
justice
burger
concurring
join
opinion
important
emphasize
providing
counsel
accused
governmental
participation
limited
gideon
wainwright
argersinger
hamlin
government
undertakes
provide
professionally
qualified
advocate
wholly
independent
government
independence
governmental
control
assigned
task
performed
crucial
advocate
officer
issued
commission
practice
owes
obligation
repudiate
external
effort
direct
obligations
client
carried
obligations
owed
attorney
client
defined
professional
codes
governmental
entity
defense
advocate
compensation
derived
disciplinary
rule
aba
code
professional
responsibility
succinctly
rule
lawyer
shall
permit
person
recommends
employs
pays
render
legal
services
another
direct
regulate
professional
judgment
rendering
legal
services
see
aba
code
professional
responsibility
canon
lawyer
exercise
independent
professional
judgment
behalf
client
ethical
consideration
explains
canon
professional
judgment
lawyer
exercised
within
bounds
law
solely
benefits
client
free
compromising
influences
loyalties
neither
personal
interests
interests
clients
desires
third
persons
permitted
dilute
loyalty
client
justice
blackmun
dissenting
one
perhaps
particularly
circumspect
finds
solitary
dissent
see
commissioner
americans
dissenting
opinion
careful
reflection
however
convinced
position
valid
one
therefore
set
forth
views
opposition
state
employee
working
office
fully
funded
extensively
regulated
state
acting
fulfill
state
obligation
violates
person
constitutional
rights
consistently
held
employee
acts
color
state
law
within
meaning
reach
conclude
decision
case
contrary
prior
rulings
meaning
color
state
law
charts
new
territory
adopting
functional
test
determining
liability
statute
respectfully
dissent
holds
first
time
today
government
official
employment
relationship
relevant
factor
determining
whether
acts
color
state
law
within
meaning
ante
last
term
parratt
taylor
noted
official
unquestionably
satisfied
requirement
state
employees
positions
considerable
authority
thus
began
ended
discussion
question
case
taylor
county
employee
sued
action
presumptively
acts
color
state
law
see
also
flagg
brooks
definition
color
state
law
relied
upon
articulated
classic
requires
defendants
action
committed
challenged
acts
course
performance
duties
misused
power
possessed
virtue
state
law
made
possible
wrongdoer
clothed
authority
state
law
see
also
screws
plurality
opinion
respondent
allegations
place
case
squarely
within
components
definition
respondent
challenges
action
taken
petitioner
shepard
county
employee
acting
official
capacity
exercising
responsibilities
pursuant
iowa
law
see
generally
iowa
code
implicitly
concedes
offender
advocate
assignment
shepard
handle
respondent
appeal
action
color
law
fails
recognize
virtue
assignment
shepard
authority
represent
respondent
seek
permission
withdraw
counsel
thereby
allegedly
violating
constitutional
rights
authority
privately
retained
attorney
represent
client
derived
client
selection
lawyer
public
defender
power
however
possessed
virtue
state
selection
attorney
official
employment
insists
public
defenders
unlike
state
employees
free
state
control
subject
administrative
direction
ethical
standards
require
professional
judgment
sacrificed
interest
employers
state
obligated
provide
indigent
defendants
independent
advocates
distinction
ignores
precedent
reality
long
held
state
official
acts
color
law
state
authorize
even
know
conduct
see
adickes
kress
monroe
pape
state
instruct
shepard
withdraw
respondent
case
therefore
irrelevant
question
whether
acted
color
state
law
moreover
present
case
indistinguishable
estelle
gamble
held
prison
doctor
deliberate
indifference
prisoner
medical
needs
prohibited
eighth
amendment
may
subject
claim
prisoner
complaint
gamble
stated
claims
gray
capacity
medical
director
texas
department
corrections
treating
physician
gray
sued
allegedly
given
plaintiff
substandard
medical
care
doctor
duty
public
custodial
supervisory
functions
issue
determined
gray
acted
color
state
law
capacity
custodian
administrator
dismissed
claims
want
jurisdiction
rather
merits
today
holds
public
defender
act
color
state
law
independent
ethical
obligations
client
yet
gamble
distinguished
ground
individual
physician
professional
ethical
obligation
patient
attorney
client
like
public
defender
institutional
doctor
responsibilities
patient
may
conflict
institutional
policies
practices
moreover
gray
fulfilling
state
duty
supply
medical
care
prison
inmates
similarly
public
defender
dedicated
satisfying
state
obligation
provide
representation
indigent
defendants
finally
like
respondent
say
selection
shepard
attorney
inmate
gamble
role
choice
gray
doctor
gamble
find
color
state
law
evaporated
face
professional
independent
ethical
obligations
see
case
different
demonstrated
pervasive
involvement
county
operations
offender
advocate
office
view
unduly
minimizes
influence
government
actually
public
defender
public
defender
merely
paid
county
totally
dependent
financially
county
board
supervisors
fixes
compensation
public
defender
staff
provides
office
equipment
supplies
see
iowa
code
board
likewise
statutorily
empowered
determine
indigency
prescribe
number
assistant
attorneys
staff
members
considered
necessary
public
defender
see
county
control
size
funding
public
defender
office
well
number
potential
clients
effectively
dictates
size
individual
attorney
caseload
influences
substantially
amount
time
attorney
able
devote
case
public
defender
discretion
handling
individual
cases
therefore
ability
provide
effective
assistance
clients
circumscribed
extent
experienced
privately
retained
attorneys
see
robinson
bergstrom
public
defender
delayed
five
years
filing
appellate
brief
error
judgment
regarding
caseload
cases
per
year
similarly
authority
appointment
public
defender
staff
see
iowa
code
gives
state
substantial
influence
quality
representation
indigents
receive
addition
public
defender
directed
file
annual
report
judges
district
county
serves
state
attorney
general
county
board
supervisors
setting
forth
detail
cases
handled
defender
office
preceding
year
requirement
suggests
government
supervisory
control
public
defender
office
least
public
defender
wary
antagonizing
official
must
report
owes
appointment
existence
office
see
surely
public
defender
staff
must
conform
whatever
policies
regulations
office
state
imposes
including
aimed
ensuring
effectiveness
representation
case
example
county
may
directed
petitioner
shepard
withdraw
respondent
case
certainly
established
general
guidelines
describing
factors
public
defender
consider
determining
appeals
frivolous
proper
treatment
appeals
basis
opinion
estelle
gamble
county
pervasive
involvement
offender
advocate
office
case
necessarily
conclude
presumption
state
employee
acts
color
state
law
exercising
official
duties
overridden
public
defender
ethical
obligations
client
ii
although
holding
petitioner
shepard
may
held
liable
withdrawing
respondent
appeal
limits
ruling
cases
public
defender
performs
lawyer
traditional
functions
counsel
defendant
criminal
proceeding
ante
appears
concede
public
defender
may
act
color
state
law
performing
unspecified
administrative
investigative
functions
even
acting
advocate
conduct
nontraditional
plaintiff
pleads
proves
state
influenced
attorney
representation
see
ante
attempts
draw
distinctions
based
function
unconvincing
never
held
government
employee
acts
color
state
law
performing
official
duties
performing
others
drew
distinctions
estelle
gamble
supra
although
adopted
approach
today
held
institutional
physician
acts
color
state
law
acting
custodian
administrative
roles
treating
patient
conclude
creates
artificial
distinction
order
avoid
conflict
branti
finkel
pause
question
whether
defender
acted
color
state
law
imbler
pachtman
cited
ante
support
based
policy
considerations
inapplicable
see
infra
held
imbler
prosecutor
enjoys
absolute
immunity
actions
taken
role
advocate
refused
decide
however
whether
policies
require
immunity
prosecutors
acting
administrative
investigate
roles
imbler
therefore
fail
endorse
functional
test
adopted
pointed
difficulties
foresaw
implementing
test
see
moreover
question
immunity
type
affirmative
defense
afforded
state
official
sued
completely
different
issue
whether
employee
acts
color
state
law
determination
goes
federal
jurisdiction
complaint
defendant
act
color
state
law
federal
power
entertain
complaint
immunity
doctrine
based
traditions
policy
considerations
defense
must
pleaded
relevant
power
consider
case
even
officials
protected
absolute
immunity
act
color
state
law
imbler
indicate
contrary
fact
absolute
immunity
protects
prosecutor
liability
long
actions
within
scope
immunity
see
imbler
nowhere
suggested
imbler
functional
test
properly
used
context
also
disclaims
intent
disturb
cases
public
defenders
prosecuted
criminal
counterpart
extorting
payment
clients
friends
relatives
ante
citing
senak
cert
denied
apparently
consider
conduct
traditional
function
attorney
yet
appeals
holding
senak
attorney
acted
color
law
inconsistent
final
loophole
apparently
leaves
open
possibility
indigent
defendant
plead
prove
state
influenced
public
defender
assigned
case
make
public
defender
liable
see
ante
type
state
intervention
sufficient
plaintiff
supposed
allege
facts
discovery
specified
essence
appears
holding
public
defender
exempt
liability
alleged
injury
ineffective
assistance
counsel
disturbing
see
adopt
hierarchy
constitutional
rights
purpose
actions
approach
extremely
difficult
implement
envision
functional
analysis
one
two
results
view
unfortunate
federal
courts
effect
adopts
per
se
rule
dismiss
complaints
public
defenders
egregious
behavior
public
defender
even
unquestionably
result
pressure
state
cognizable
alternatively
courts
may
attempt
diligently
implement
ruling
dismiss
claims
based
public
defender
traditional
functions
advocate
outcome
fear
lengthy
involved
hearings
merits
determine
whether
jurisdiction
result
wishes
avoid
iii
sympathetic
desire
protect
public
defenders
represent
indigent
defendants
good
faith
suit
every
dissatisfied
client
concern
public
defender
programs
seeming
hostility
merits
respondent
claims
see
ante
justify
approach
taken
today
recognize
public
defenders
act
color
state
law
transform
every
legal
malpractice
constitutional
violation
cf
estelle
gamble
presumably
immunity
provided
public
defenders
sued
always
seen
fit
rely
immunity
procedures
available
dismissing
meritless
complaints
order
protect
state
officials
see
butz
economou
cf
ferri
ackerman
affirm
judgment
appeals
also
says
public
defender
ethical
obligations
privately
retained
lawyer
concludes
public
defender
serves
essentially
private
function
state
office
authority
needed
ante
fact
state
official
role
parallel
one
private
sector
however
never
deterred
holding
former
action
color
state
law
section
meant
proscribed
certain
actions
state
officials
even
though
identical
conduct
private
persons
included
within
statutes
scope
cf
estelle
gamble
see
also
griffin
maryland
individual
possessed
state
authority
purports
act
authority
action
state
action
irrelevant
might
taken
action
acted
purely
private
capacity
although
griffin
involved
state
action
fourteenth
amendment
state
action
color
state
law
consistently
treated
incorporating
identical
requirements
see
infra
similarly
donaldson
defendant
psychiatrist
superintendent
state
mental
hospital
sued
actions
taken
pursuant
responsibilities
protect
public
evidence
clearly
showed
plaintiff
hospitalized
reasons
dangerousness
others
see
reasoning
claims
may
based
doctrine
respondent
superior
concluded
respondent
stated
claim
offender
advocate
polk
county
county
board
supervisors
see
ante
agree
appeals
however
respondent
allege
defendants
established
layed
sic
ground
rules
public
defender
office
authorize
petitioner
shepard
act
manner
prescribed
complaint
app
respondent
also
alleged
public
defenders
offender
advocate
office
acted
manner
shepard
challenged
process
office
represented
indigents
although
respondent
point
particular
official
policy
pursuant
shepard
acted
withdrawing
case
general
allegations
existence
policy
however
inartfully
pleaded
sufficient
call
opportunity
offer
supporting
evidence
haines
kerner
respondent
unable
substantiate
claims
complaint
course
may
dismissed
motion
summary
judgment
pervasive
state
control
public
defenders
distinguished
attorneys
state
officials
control
caseloads
representations
depend
state
fee
state
real
involvement
although
find
precedents
definition
color
state
law
persuasive
also
draw
support
discussions
state
action
fourteenth
amendment
find
basis
intimation
ante
two
doctrines
incorporate
different
requirements
see
price
extent
analyzed
two
concepts
separately
done
suits
private
actors
flagg
brooks
observed
course
defendant
public
official
two
elements
action
merge
involvement
state
official
plainly
provides
state
action
essential
show
direct
violation
petitioner
fourteenth
amendment
rights
whether
actions
officer
officially
authorized
lawful
adickes
kress
citations
omitted
ellipses
original
principles
articulated
burton
wilmington
parking
authority
discerning
state
action
conduct
private
party
therefore
helpful
way
analogy
first
public
defender
office
constitute
physically
financially
integral
indeed
indispensable
part
state
plan
fulfill
constitutional
obligation
provide
representation
indigents
second
relationship
state
public
defender
symbiotic
one
state
able
satisfy
responsibility
supply
counsel
defendants
public
defender
gainfully
employed
finally
state
responsible
public
defenders
office
attempt
ensure
clients
receive
effective
assistance
counsel
example
hiring
qualified
personnel
providing
sufficient
funding
enforcing
strict
standards
competence
cases
ineffective
assistance
public
defenders
may
said
state
made
party
representation
elected
place
power
property
prestige
behind
public
defender
action
state
far
insinuated
position
interdependence
attorney
must
recognized
joint
participant
challenged
activity
hand
forced
somewhat
precedent
even
officials
afforded
absolute
immunity
civil
damages
susceptible
prosecution
willful
violation
civil
rights
see
imbler
pachtman
consistently
held
two
provisions
incorporated
requirement
see
adickes
kress
price
senak
appeals
held
public
defender
demand
compensation
client
made
ostensibly
virtue
attorney
appointment
backed
power
state
official
position
gave
opportunity
make
demands
clothed
authority
state
similarly
case
petitioner
shepard
authority
withdraw
respondent
case
derived
appointment
backed
power
state
official
position
gave
opportunity
act
allegedly
violate
respondent
constitutional
rights
discuss
issue
detail
reach
assume
public
defenders
afforded
qualified
immunity
absolute
immunity
extended
position
history
immunity
see
pierson
ray
moreover
public
defenders
jobs
subject
conflicting
responsibilities
number
constituencies
absolute
immunity
necessary
ensure
principled
decisionmaking
fact
threat
claims
dissatisfied
clients
may
provide
additional
incentive
competent
performance
public
defender
duties
see
ferri
ackerman