Motion Dismissal Response Analysis

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES ROBERT TICE, : Plaintiff : No. *:*-CV-* : v. : Judge Bissoon : HARRY E. WILSON, et al., : Defendants : PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP'') *(b), this Response opposes the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant, Anthony Loque-Esq. The Plaintiff, James Robert Tice, counters the mo tion's arguments, establishing a cause of action under * U.S.C. § * and other relevant statu tes, in accordance with FRCP *(a). STANDARD OF REVIEW Under FRCP *(b), dismissal is warranted only if the plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief. Allegations are accepted as true, viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, * U.S. * (*)). ARGUMENT Public Defender as State Actor The Plaintiff demonstrates, per FRCP *(a)(*), the public defender's role as a state actor, essential for a Section * claim. As state employees, public defenders fulfill the "under color of state law" requirement (Polk County v. Dodson, * U.S. * (*)). Constitutional Violations Specific breaches are detailed under FRCP *(a)(*), including: Sixth Amendment: The right to a fair trial was compromised by the public defender's act ions, such as pressuring plea bargains and neglecting innocent claims, violating the right to effective assistance of counsel and to confront accusers (Gideon v. Wainwright, * U.S. * (*); Holloway v. Arkansas, * U.S. * (*)). Fourteenth Amendment: The public defender's conduct breached the Plaintiff's due proc ess rights, with Third Circuit case law providing context (Mattox v. City of Clairton, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *)). Acting Outside Scope The Plaintiff shows the public defender acted beyond their employment scope, violating FRCP * (a)(*), including failure to investigate, and advise the Plaintiff properly, contravening the Penns ylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. Addressing Potential Restrictions Despite resource limitations, the public defender's disregard for the Plaintiff's rights was inexcus able. Strategies such as prioritizing investigation, exploring alternatives, and proper communica tion could have mitigated these limitations. Evidence Supporting Claims (FRCP *(b)) Compliance with FRCP *(b) is intended, with evidence including court transcripts, medical rec ords, witness affidavits, and documentation of improper transfer, and detention based on wron gful convictions, and illegal sentences, without proper juvenile records obtained. Other Applicable Laws Beyond Section *, claims under Pennsylvania law for legal malpractice and, misconduct by the public defender are explored. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND LEGAL ANALYSIS The plaintiff, James Robert Tice, brings forth this lawsuit following a series of compounded injustices, that began in his juvenile years, and extended into adulthood, marked by continuous wrongful imprisonments, and systemic denial of constitutional rights, leading to illegal excessive sentences. These events outline a grave miscarriage of justice that not only compromised the inte grity of the judicial system, but. also mocked the very essence of justice, particularly for a disab led individual. found actually innocent with all evidence needed, and still denied relief placing him, under a punitive life sentence under capital punishment.. A. Continuous Wrongful Imprisonment The plaintiff's ordeal is characterized by repeated imprisonments, under the guise of tactical, and collateral consequences, stemming from being charged as an adult for crimes not committed eith er in juvenile or adult status. This continuous cycle of wrongful convictions has left an indelible mark on the plaintiff's life, denying him the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the constitut ion. B. Violation of Constitutional Rights Throughout this process, the defendants knowingly violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights, including the right to effective assistance of counsel, the right to a fair trial, and the right to due process. These violations were not mere oversights, but deliberate actions that undermined the judicial system's integrity, trapping a disabled individual in a cycle of wrongful convictions with out any semblance of defense, with motions even stating the state had no evidence to convict by him, and had partial juvenile record by prosecutor after a brady violation. C. Manifest Injustice and Ineffective Counsel The plaintiff's case is a manifest of injustice, highlighting multiple instances where, the effective ness of counsel was severely compromised. The inability of counsel to provide adequate defense ensured, the plaintiff remained trapped within the judicial system, wrongfully convicted, and wi thout recourse. This ineffectiveness was further exacerbated by false testimonies in federal court, aimed at covering mistakes, but ultimately resulting in illegal guilty verdicts continuing based on denial,and he did not remember remarks to questions. D. Jurisdictional and Legal Anomalies The plaintiff's continued status as a juvenile by court order, closed from jurisdiction, yet recha rged for the same allegations, underscores significant jurisdictional, and legal anomalies. These include, a de novo trial, lacking jurisdiction, and the characterization of the plaintiff as a "stolen child" in the juvenile system, who, under the law, could never be charged with the crimes alle ged. Despite being 18 years old, and found actually innocent, the plaintiff faced five forces guil ty verdicts, without the application of mitigating circumstances due to counsel's failures, inclu ding collateral sentencing after expo facto, and retroactive, left to fend for himself. CAUSATION The Actions led to Wrongful Convictions for all three cases, and denial of evidence, while viola ting ADA Rights. He had a duty to his client, and a duty to give up being counsel, and engaging other counsel if he couldn't full-fill proper defense, and failed to do so knowingly, and intellig ently. ALIBI WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE NON RETRIEVAL Attorney Logue Failed to retrieve stated evidence, already retrieved, knowing that the evidence was available, and could be obtained possibly, and disregarded such, including starting at federal trial under oath, he spoke to a bill madura, when he couldn’t have, reflecting , he was not even aware of the proper witness’s, and there location, nor any evidence, created absolute ineffective assistance of counsel on all three cases alone. Knowing he was a Juvenile charged as an Adult, stated by plaintiff, and negated that rout e, while the judge himself in jury trial stated it, giving him the defense, and he not taking it, was clear ineffective, indicative of counsel, not having a defense, coincides with the truth, plaintiff stated, when counsel told him he had no F*cking-Defense for him in the sheriff's office. Not obtaining the witnesses, and evidence, but stating he spoke to some, then attempted to scapegoat the fact, by stating they proved he was there shows he did not have a defe nse, but actually was against him rather, coinciding and relevant to the non jury trial judg e having some form of control over him. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, James Robert Tice, opposes the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, [Anthony Logue’s]-[Esq], and contends that the Defendant, in their capacity as a public defender, acted inside, and out side, the scope of their employment, and violated clearly established constitutiona l rights of the Plaintiff, thereby disqualifying them from qualified immunity protection. This opp osition is grounded in the principles established under * U.S.C. § *, and relevant jurisprude nce. II. ARGUMENT A. Public Defender as State Actor The Defendant, serving as a public defender, is recognized as a state actor under * U.S.C. § * * for actions performed, within the scope of their official duties (Polk County v. Dodson, * U.S. * (*)). However, this designation does not grant blanket immunity from liability for actions that violate constitutional rights. B. Clearly Established Rights and Violations Thereof Sixth Amendment Violations: The Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment right to effective assista nce of counsel, was directly violated by, the Defendant's actions. Despite the Plaintiff's insistence on innocence, and preference for a jury trial, the Defendant pressured the Plain tiff, into accepting a non-jury trial, and failed to investigate, crucial alibi witnesses, or present a defense consistent with the Plaintiff's wishes. These actions are contrary to the established duty of effective assistance (Strickland v. Washington, * U.S. * (* )). Fourteenth Amendment Violations: The Defendant's conduct also implicated violations of the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. By acting in a manner that effectively denied the Plaintiff a fair trial, and adequate representation, the Defendant disregarded the Plaintiff's due process rights, as clearly established under the Third Circui t (Mattox v. City of Clairton, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *)). C. Acting Outside the Scope of Employment The Defendant's failure to provide effective assistance, as detailed above, constitutes actions outs ide the scope of their employment as a public defender. The refusal to investigate, advise, or adv ocate on behalf of the Plaintiff, especially when such refusal leads to a deprivation of constituti onal rights, cannot be considered within the legitimate scope of a public defender's duties. D. Overcoming Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public defenders from liability for actions taken within the scope of their official duties, unless they violated clearly established statutory, or constitutional rights of which, a reasonable person would have known. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Defendan t's actions not only violated, clearly established rights, but also fell outside the protective scope of qualified immunity, due to their egregious nature, and direct impact, on the Plaintiff's righ ts.Armstrong v. Squadrito, * F.3d * (7th Cir. *): It established that an ongoing viola tion of a plaintiff's rights can defeat immunity claims. Lewis v. Clarke, * S. Ct. * (*): The Supreme Court held that individual capacity suits against state officials can proceed despite immunity defense. Atkinson v. Taylor, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *): Individual state officials ca n be held personally liable for damages under §*.Bistrian v. Levi, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *): Qualified immunity is defeated if the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established. Rule *(c)(*)(B): Allows an amended complaint to relate back to the date of the original complaint if it arises out of the same conduct. This is not time barred, In Pennsylvania, both the "Ex Parte Young'' doctrine and the "ongoing violation doctrine" apply, Allows a federal court to hear suits against state officials for ongoing constitutional violations, and Ongoing violation doctrine" is invoked, further, neither need to app ly, because time limitations is illegal to apply, based on the sentencing scheme to plaintiff and ongoing violations, causing capital punishment. allowing Plaintiff to bypass certain immunity and time limitation defenses for ongoing out of his control violations. The plaintiff is alleging ongoing constitutional violations, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine also does not apply for 35 years of ongoing consequences. Further ongoing harm extends the statute of limitations. If a wrongful conviction occurred in *-*, *, and the alleged harm is continuing until *, the "ongoing violation doctrine" “{automatically}” extends the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit of plaintiffs. Rule * Compliance: The complaint details specific events (failure to investigate, pressured plea, ignoring disabil ity) that demonstrate the public defender's actions, and how they violated the plaintiff's rights (ri ght to fair trial, due process). This satisfies the requirements of Rule * for a well-pleaded com plaint. Seriousness of Allegations: The public defender's alleged statements ("no defense") and disregard for the plaintiff's disability are concerning to warrant ineffective assistance, and denial of evidence. Violation of Constitutional Rights Violated: First Amendment: Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press. Fourth Amendment: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Fifth Amendment: Right to due process and protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy. Sixth Amendment: Rights related to criminal prosecutions, including the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to confront witnesses, to compulsory process for obtaining wit nesses, and to have the Assistance of Counsel. Plaintiff had no counsel represe nting him at a non, jury trial, he was forced to sit down by the judge, and not repre sent his client, so this denied representation at trial violating his sixth amendme nt, and he let it happen. Eighth Amendment: Protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Fourteenth Amendment: Protection of due process and equal protection under th e law. Juvenile Act Civil Rights Violations (* U.S.C. § *): This allows individuals to sue state, and loca l government officials who have violated their constitutional rights. Common claims inc lude police misconduct, wrongful conviction, excessive force, false arrest, and deprivati on of medical care while in custody. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Violations occur when a state or local government entity or a public accommodation (like a school, workplace, or public space) discriminates against an individual because of their disability. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of *: Prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. This includes harassment or any form of employment discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of *: Prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Fair Housing Act: Prohibits discrimination by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions, and homeowners insurance companies whose discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons because of: Race or color Religion Sex National origin Familial status (including children under the age of * living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of *) Disability Violations of State Laws: Depending on the jurisdiction, plaintiffs may also proceed against defendants for violating specific state laws, which could include state civil rights laws, consumer protection laws, or criminal laws that provide for civil remedies. ARGUMENT A. Comprehensive Violation of Constitutional Rights The Defendant, through their actions and inactions, violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights in several significant ways, as outlined below: Sixth Amendment Violations: The right to effective assistance of counsel is a corne rstone of the Sixth Amendment (Gideon v. Wainwright, * U.S. * (*)). The Defendant's failure to investigate the Plaintiff's case, refusal to consider alibi witnesses, and pressure to accept a non-jury trial, despite the Plaintiff's objections directly, contra vened this right. Furthermore, the Defendant's admission of not knowing how to defend the Plaintiff, and discouraging the pursuit of a defense exemplifies a blatant disregard for the Plaintiff's right to a fair trial.Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel,McQuiggan v. Perkins, * S. Ct. * (*): This case clarifies the standards for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. It emphasizes the importance of showing that the def ense attorney's actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that these deficient actions prejudiced the defendant's case. Strickland v. Washington, * U.S. * (*): This landmark case established the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, to show that the attorney's performance was deficient, and that this deficiency prejudiced plaintiffs' defense. Fourteenth Amendment Violations: The Defendant's actions also infringed upon the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. By acting in a manner that effect ively railroaded the Plaintiff into a guilty verdict, without a fair chance, to contest the cha rges, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's due process rights. This is particularly egreg ious given the Third Circuit's stance on due process violations in criminal cases (Mattox v. City of Clairton, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *)). Further Violating the ADA Rights: Garret v. City of Atlanta, * F.3d * (11th Cir. *). Emotional and Psychological Impact:The public defender's repeated failures to invest igate properly, present alibi witnesses, and advocate for my right to a fair trial have caus ed me significant emotional distress. These actions left me feeling helpless, and denied me, the basic due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution. As a result, I have suffered from anxiety, and depression, illegal sentences, wrongful convictions, that could have been stopped, further highlighting the harm caused by the public defender's ineffec tive assistance. B. Acting Outside the Scope of Professional Duties The Defendant's conduct, as described, falls outside the scope of professional duties expected of a public defender. This includes: Neglecting to perform a reasonable investigation or to present a defense aligned with the Plaintiff's wishes, contrary to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule *.*(a), *.*(a)). Ignoring the Plaintiff's disability and failing to accommodate it in their defense strategy, further exacerbating the violation of the Plaintiff's rights. C. Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply Given the egregious nature of the Defendant's actions, which violated clearly established consti tutional rights, the defense of qualified immunity is inapplicable. The Defendant's conduct not on ly violated statutory and constitutional provisions but did so in a manner that any reasonable atto rney would understand as wrongful. The Defendant's actions have caused significant harm to the Plaintiff, violating fundamental cons titutional rights and professional standards. As such, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, allowing the Plaintiff to seek the necessary relief for the injustices endured. CONCLUSION Given the evidence presented, and the applicable legal standards, the Plaintiff respectfully reques ts that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff has established a plausi ble claim for relief under * U.S.C. § *, demonstrating that the Defendant's actions violated clearly established constitutional rights, and were inside, and outside, the scope of qualified imm unity. Therefore, this case warrants further judicial review, and should proceed to discovery, and trial. IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Given the egregious nature of the violations against the plaintiff and the systemic failures that have perpetuated his wrongful convictions, this lawsuit seeks to rectify the injustices endured by James Robert Tice. The plaintiff requests judicial intervention to address the wrongful convi ctions, the denial of constitutional rights, and the mockery of justice that has characterized his treatment within the judicial system. CONCLUSION The Plaintiff has established a well-pleaded complaint, demonstrating the public defender's state actor status, specific constitutional violations, and actions outside the scope of employment. Evidence supports these claims, with potential for additional actions under Pennsylvania law causing failing to investigate, pressuring a non-jury trial, and not protecting rights during a jury trial - fall outside the scope of their duties, and could be considered deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's rights. Further he was already found to be ineffective in the Assistance of Counsel case * of *.

IM ASKING THE QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES ROBERT TICE, : Plaintiff : No. *:*-CV-* : v. : Judge Bissoon : HARRY E. WILSON, et al., : Defendants : PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP'') *(b), this Response opposes the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant, Anthony Loque-Esq. The Plaintiff, James Robert Tice, counters the mo tion's arguments, establishing a cause of action under * U.S.C. § * and other relevant statu tes, in accordance with FRCP *(a). STANDARD OF REVIEW Under FRCP *(b), dismissal is warranted only if the plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief. Allegations are accepted as true, viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, * U.S. * (*)). ARGUMENT Public Defender as State Actor The Plaintiff demonstrates, per FRCP *(a)(*), the public defender's role as a state actor, essential for a Section * claim. As state employees, public defenders fulfill the "under color of state law" requirement (Polk County v. Dodson, * U.S. * (*)). Constitutional Violations Specific breaches are detailed under FRCP *(a)(*), including: Sixth Amendment: The right to a fair trial was compromised by the public defender's act ions, such as pressuring plea bargains and neglecting innocent claims, violating the right to effective assistance of counsel and to confront accusers (Gideon v. Wainwright, * U.S. * (*); Holloway v. Arkansas, * U.S. * (*)). Fourteenth Amendment: The public defender's conduct breached the Plaintiff's due proc ess rights, with Third Circuit case law providing context (Mattox v. City of Clairton, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *)). Acting Outside Scope The Plaintiff shows the public defender acted beyond their employment scope, violating FRCP * (a)(*), including failure to investigate, and advise the Plaintiff properly, contravening the Penns ylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. Addressing Potential Restrictions Despite resource limitations, the public defender's disregard for the Plaintiff's rights was inexcus able. Strategies such as prioritizing investigation, exploring alternatives, and proper communica tion could have mitigated these limitations. Evidence Supporting Claims (FRCP *(b)) Compliance with FRCP *(b) is intended, with evidence including court transcripts, medical rec ords, witness affidavits, and documentation of improper transfer, and detention based on wron gful convictions, and illegal sentences, without proper juvenile records obtained. Other Applicable Laws Beyond Section *, claims under Pennsylvania law for legal malpractice and, misconduct by the public defender are explored. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND LEGAL ANALYSIS The plaintiff, James Robert Tice, brings forth this lawsuit following a series of compounded injustices, that began in his juvenile years, and extended into adulthood, marked by continuous wrongful imprisonments, and systemic denial of constitutional rights, leading to illegal excessive sentences. These events outline a grave miscarriage of justice that not only compromised the inte grity of the judicial system, but. also mocked the very essence of justice, particularly for a disab led individual. found actually innocent with all evidence needed, and still denied relief placing him, under a punitive life sentence under capital punishment.. A. Continuous Wrongful Imprisonment The plaintiff's ordeal is characterized by repeated imprisonments, under the guise of tactical, and collateral consequences, stemming from being charged as an adult for crimes not committed eith er in juvenile or adult status. This continuous cycle of wrongful convictions has left an indelible mark on the plaintiff's life, denying him the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the constitut ion. B. Violation of Constitutional Rights Throughout this process, the defendants knowingly violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights, including the right to effective assistance of counsel, the right to a fair trial, and the right to due process. These violations were not mere oversights, but deliberate actions that undermined the judicial system's integrity, trapping a disabled individual in a cycle of wrongful convictions with out any semblance of defense, with motions even stating the state had no evidence to convict by him, and had partial juvenile record by prosecutor after a brady violation. C. Manifest Injustice and Ineffective Counsel The plaintiff's case is a manifest of injustice, highlighting multiple instances where, the effective ness of counsel was severely compromised. The inability of counsel to provide adequate defense ensured, the plaintiff remained trapped within the judicial system, wrongfully convicted, and wi thout recourse. This ineffectiveness was further exacerbated by false testimonies in federal court, aimed at covering mistakes, but ultimately resulting in illegal guilty verdicts continuing based on denial,and he did not remember remarks to questions. D. Jurisdictional and Legal Anomalies The plaintiff's continued status as a juvenile by court order, closed from jurisdiction, yet recha rged for the same allegations, underscores significant jurisdictional, and legal anomalies. These include, a de novo trial, lacking jurisdiction, and the characterization of the plaintiff as a "stolen child" in the juvenile system, who, under the law, could never be charged with the crimes alle ged. Despite being 18 years old, and found actually innocent, the plaintiff faced five forces guil ty verdicts, without the application of mitigating circumstances due to counsel's failures, inclu ding collateral sentencing after expo facto, and retroactive, left to fend for himself. CAUSATION The Actions led to Wrongful Convictions for all three cases, and denial of evidence, while viola ting ADA Rights. He had a duty to his client, and a duty to give up being counsel, and engaging other counsel if he couldn't full-fill proper defense, and failed to do so knowingly, and intellig ently. ALIBI WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE NON RETRIEVAL Attorney Logue Failed to retrieve stated evidence, already retrieved, knowing that the evidence was available, and could be obtained possibly, and disregarded such, including starting at federal trial under oath, he spoke to a bill madura, when he couldn’t have, reflecting , he was not even aware of the proper witness’s, and there location, nor any evidence, created absolute ineffective assistance of counsel on all three cases alone. Knowing he was a Juvenile charged as an Adult, stated by plaintiff, and negated that rout e, while the judge himself in jury trial stated it, giving him the defense, and he not taking it, was clear ineffective, indicative of counsel, not having a defense, coincides with the truth, plaintiff stated, when counsel told him he had no F*cking-Defense for him in the sheriff's office. Not obtaining the witnesses, and evidence, but stating he spoke to some, then attempted to scapegoat the fact, by stating they proved he was there shows he did not have a defe nse, but actually was against him rather, coinciding and relevant to the non jury trial judg e having some form of control over him. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, James Robert Tice, opposes the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, [Anthony Logue’s]-[Esq], and contends that the Defendant, in their capacity as a public defender, acted inside, and out side, the scope of their employment, and violated clearly established constitutiona l rights of the Plaintiff, thereby disqualifying them from qualified immunity protection. This opp osition is grounded in the principles established under * U.S.C. § *, and relevant jurisprude nce. II. ARGUMENT A. Public Defender as State Actor The Defendant, serving as a public defender, is recognized as a state actor under * U.S.C. § * * for actions performed, within the scope of their official duties (Polk County v. Dodson, * U.S. * (*)). However, this designation does not grant blanket immunity from liability for actions that violate constitutional rights. B. Clearly Established Rights and Violations Thereof Sixth Amendment Violations: The Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment right to effective assista nce of counsel, was directly violated by, the Defendant's actions. Despite the Plaintiff's insistence on innocence, and preference for a jury trial, the Defendant pressured the Plain tiff, into accepting a non-jury trial, and failed to investigate, crucial alibi witnesses, or present a defense consistent with the Plaintiff's wishes. These actions are contrary to the established duty of effective assistance (Strickland v. Washington, * U.S. * (* )). Fourteenth Amendment Violations: The Defendant's conduct also implicated violations of the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. By acting in a manner that effectively denied the Plaintiff a fair trial, and adequate representation, the Defendant disregarded the Plaintiff's due process rights, as clearly established under the Third Circui t (Mattox v. City of Clairton, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *)). C. Acting Outside the Scope of Employment The Defendant's failure to provide effective assistance, as detailed above, constitutes actions outs ide the scope of their employment as a public defender. The refusal to investigate, advise, or adv ocate on behalf of the Plaintiff, especially when such refusal leads to a deprivation of constituti onal rights, cannot be considered within the legitimate scope of a public defender's duties. D. Overcoming Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public defenders from liability for actions taken within the scope of their official duties, unless they violated clearly established statutory, or constitutional rights of which, a reasonable person would have known. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Defendan t's actions not only violated, clearly established rights, but also fell outside the protective scope of qualified immunity, due to their egregious nature, and direct impact, on the Plaintiff's righ ts.Armstrong v. Squadrito, * F.3d * (7th Cir. *): It established that an ongoing viola tion of a plaintiff's rights can defeat immunity claims. Lewis v. Clarke, * S. Ct. * (*): The Supreme Court held that individual capacity suits against state officials can proceed despite immunity defense. Atkinson v. Taylor, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *): Individual state officials ca n be held personally liable for damages under §*.Bistrian v. Levi, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *): Qualified immunity is defeated if the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established. Rule *(c)(*)(B): Allows an amended complaint to relate back to the date of the original complaint if it arises out of the same conduct. This is not time barred, In Pennsylvania, both the "Ex Parte Young'' doctrine and the "ongoing violation doctrine" apply, Allows a federal court to hear suits against state officials for ongoing constitutional violations, and Ongoing violation doctrine" is invoked, further, neither need to app ly, because time limitations is illegal to apply, based on the sentencing scheme to plaintiff and ongoing violations, causing capital punishment. allowing Plaintiff to bypass certain immunity and time limitation defenses for ongoing out of his control violations. The plaintiff is alleging ongoing constitutional violations, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine also does not apply for 35 years of ongoing consequences. Further ongoing harm extends the statute of limitations. If a wrongful conviction occurred in *-*, *, and the alleged harm is continuing until *, the "ongoing violation doctrine" “{automatically}” extends the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit of plaintiffs. Rule * Compliance: The complaint details specific events (failure to investigate, pressured plea, ignoring disabil ity) that demonstrate the public defender's actions, and how they violated the plaintiff's rights (ri ght to fair trial, due process). This satisfies the requirements of Rule * for a well-pleaded com plaint. Seriousness of Allegations: The public defender's alleged statements ("no defense") and disregard for the plaintiff's disability are concerning to warrant ineffective assistance, and denial of evidence. Violation of Constitutional Rights Violated: First Amendment: Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press. Fourth Amendment: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Fifth Amendment: Right to due process and protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy. Sixth Amendment: Rights related to criminal prosecutions, including the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to confront witnesses, to compulsory process for obtaining wit nesses, and to have the Assistance of Counsel. Plaintiff had no counsel represe nting him at a non, jury trial, he was forced to sit down by the judge, and not repre sent his client, so this denied representation at trial violating his sixth amendme nt, and he let it happen. Eighth Amendment: Protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Fourteenth Amendment: Protection of due process and equal protection under th e law. Juvenile Act Civil Rights Violations (* U.S.C. § *): This allows individuals to sue state, and loca l government officials who have violated their constitutional rights. Common claims inc lude police misconduct, wrongful conviction, excessive force, false arrest, and deprivati on of medical care while in custody. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Violations occur when a state or local government entity or a public accommodation (like a school, workplace, or public space) discriminates against an individual because of their disability. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of *: Prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. This includes harassment or any form of employment discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of *: Prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Fair Housing Act: Prohibits discrimination by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions, and homeowners insurance companies whose discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons because of: Race or color Religion Sex National origin Familial status (including children under the age of * living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of *) Disability Violations of State Laws: Depending on the jurisdiction, plaintiffs may also proceed against defendants for violating specific state laws, which could include state civil rights laws, consumer protection laws, or criminal laws that provide for civil remedies. ARGUMENT A. Comprehensive Violation of Constitutional Rights The Defendant, through their actions and inactions, violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights in several significant ways, as outlined below: Sixth Amendment Violations: The right to effective assistance of counsel is a corne rstone of the Sixth Amendment (Gideon v. Wainwright, * U.S. * (*)). The Defendant's failure to investigate the Plaintiff's case, refusal to consider alibi witnesses, and pressure to accept a non-jury trial, despite the Plaintiff's objections directly, contra vened this right. Furthermore, the Defendant's admission of not knowing how to defend the Plaintiff, and discouraging the pursuit of a defense exemplifies a blatant disregard for the Plaintiff's right to a fair trial.Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel,McQuiggan v. Perkins, * S. Ct. * (*): This case clarifies the standards for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. It emphasizes the importance of showing that the def ense attorney's actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that these deficient actions prejudiced the defendant's case. Strickland v. Washington, * U.S. * (*): This landmark case established the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, to show that the attorney's performance was deficient, and that this deficiency prejudiced plaintiffs' defense. Fourteenth Amendment Violations: The Defendant's actions also infringed upon the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. By acting in a manner that effect ively railroaded the Plaintiff into a guilty verdict, without a fair chance, to contest the cha rges, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's due process rights. This is particularly egreg ious given the Third Circuit's stance on due process violations in criminal cases (Mattox v. City of Clairton, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *)). Further Violating the ADA Rights: Garret v. City of Atlanta, * F.3d * (11th Cir. *). Emotional and Psychological Impact:The public defender's repeated failures to invest igate properly, present alibi witnesses, and advocate for my right to a fair trial have caus ed me significant emotional distress. These actions left me feeling helpless, and denied me, the basic due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution. As a result, I have suffered from anxiety, and depression, illegal sentences, wrongful convictions, that could have been stopped, further highlighting the harm caused by the public defender's ineffec tive assistance. B. Acting Outside the Scope of Professional Duties The Defendant's conduct, as described, falls outside the scope of professional duties expected of a public defender. This includes: Neglecting to perform a reasonable investigation or to present a defense aligned with the Plaintiff's wishes, contrary to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule *.*(a), *.*(a)). Ignoring the Plaintiff's disability and failing to accommodate it in their defense strategy, further exacerbating the violation of the Plaintiff's rights. C. Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply Given the egregious nature of the Defendant's actions, which violated clearly established consti tutional rights, the defense of qualified immunity is inapplicable. The Defendant's conduct not on ly violated statutory and constitutional provisions but did so in a manner that any reasonable atto rney would understand as wrongful. The Defendant's actions have caused significant harm to the Plaintiff, violating fundamental cons titutional rights and professional standards. As such, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, allowing the Plaintiff to seek the necessary relief for the injustices endured. CONCLUSION Given the evidence presented, and the applicable legal standards, the Plaintiff respectfully reques ts that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff has established a plausi ble claim for relief under * U.S.C. § *, demonstrating that the Defendant's actions violated clearly established constitutional rights, and were inside, and outside, the scope of qualified imm unity. Therefore, this case warrants further judicial review, and should proceed to discovery, and trial. IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Given the egregious nature of the violations against the plaintiff and the systemic failures that have perpetuated his wrongful convictions, this lawsuit seeks to rectify the injustices endured by James Robert Tice. The plaintiff requests judicial intervention to address the wrongful convi ctions, the denial of constitutional rights, and the mockery of justice that has characterized his treatment within the judicial system. CONCLUSION The Plaintiff has established a well-pleaded complaint, demonstrating the public defender's state actor status, specific constitutional violations, and actions outside the scope of employment. Evidence supports these claims, with potential for additional actions under Pennsylvania law causing failing to investigate, pressuring a non-jury trial, and not protecting rights during a jury trial - fall outside the scope of their duties, and could be considered deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's rights. Further he was already found to be ineffective in the Assistance of Counsel case * of *.

YES BUT WE ARE DISCUSSING THAT IT CORRECT IN THE LAW CITED

IS THE CASE LAW CORRECT

PA WESTERN DISCTRICT 3RD CIRCUIT

SO ALL LAW IS RELEVANT AND SUPPORTS PLAINTIFF RESPONSE CORRECTLY

SO ITS LEGALLY BINDING

BUT IT SUPPORTS THE POSITION

TO THE ISSUES HERE

IM REFERING TO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES ROBERT TICE, : Plaintiff : No. *:*-CV-* : v. : Judge Bissoon : HARRY E. WILSON, et al., : Defendants : PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP'') *(b), this Response opposes the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant, Anthony Loque-Esq. The Plaintiff, James Robert Tice, counters the mo tion's arguments, establishing a cause of action under * U.S.C. § * and other relevant statu tes, in accordance with FRCP *(a). STANDARD OF REVIEW Under FRCP *(b), dismissal is warranted only if the plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief. Allegations are accepted as true, viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, * U.S. * (*)). ARGUMENT Public Defender as State Actor The Plaintiff demonstrates, per FRCP *(a)(*), the public defender's role as a state actor, essential for a Section * claim. As state employees, public defenders fulfill the "under color of state law" requirement (Polk County v. Dodson, * U.S. * (*)). Constitutional Violations Specific breaches are detailed under FRCP *(a)(*), including: Sixth Amendment: The right to a fair trial was compromised by the public defender's act ions, such as pressuring plea bargains and neglecting innocent claims, violating the right to effective assistance of counsel and to confront accusers (Gideon v. Wainwright, * U.S. * (*); Holloway v. Arkansas, * U.S. * (*)). Fourteenth Amendment: The public defender's conduct breached the Plaintiff's due proc ess rights, with Third Circuit case law providing context (Mattox v. City of Clairton, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *)). Acting Outside Scope The Plaintiff shows the public defender acted beyond their employment scope, violating FRCP * (a)(*), including failure to investigate, and advise the Plaintiff properly, contravening the Penns ylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. Addressing Potential Restrictions Despite resource limitations, the public defender's disregard for the Plaintiff's rights was inexcus able. Strategies such as prioritizing investigation, exploring alternatives, and proper communica tion could have mitigated these limitations. Evidence Supporting Claims (FRCP *(b)) Compliance with FRCP *(b) is intended, with evidence including court transcripts, medical rec ords, witness affidavits, and documentation of improper transfer, and detention based on wron gful convictions, and illegal sentences, without proper juvenile records obtained. Other Applicable Laws Beyond Section *, claims under Pennsylvania law for legal malpractice and, misconduct by the public defender are explored. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND LEGAL ANALYSIS The plaintiff, James Robert Tice, brings forth this lawsuit following a series of compounded injustices, that began in his juvenile years, and extended into adulthood, marked by continuous wrongful imprisonments, and systemic denial of constitutional rights, leading to illegal excessive sentences. These events outline a grave miscarriage of justice that not only compromised the inte grity of the judicial system, but. also mocked the very essence of justice, particularly for a disab led individual. found actually innocent with all evidence needed, and still denied relief placing him, under a punitive life sentence under capital punishment.. A. Continuous Wrongful Imprisonment The plaintiff's ordeal is characterized by repeated imprisonments, under the guise of tactical, and collateral consequences, stemming from being charged as an adult for crimes not committed eith er in juvenile or adult status. This continuous cycle of wrongful convictions has left an indelible mark on the plaintiff's life, denying him the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the constitut ion. B. Violation of Constitutional Rights Throughout this process, the defendants knowingly violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights, including the right to effective assistance of counsel, the right to a fair trial, and the right to due process. These violations were not mere oversights, but deliberate actions that undermined the judicial system's integrity, trapping a disabled individual in a cycle of wrongful convictions with out any semblance of defense, with motions even stating the state had no evidence to convict by him, and had partial juvenile record by prosecutor after a brady violation. C. Manifest Injustice and Ineffective Counsel The plaintiff's case is a manifest of injustice, highlighting multiple instances where, the effective ness of counsel was severely compromised. The inability of counsel to provide adequate defense ensured, the plaintiff remained trapped within the judicial system, wrongfully convicted, and wi thout recourse. This ineffectiveness was further exacerbated by false testimonies in federal court, aimed at covering mistakes, but ultimately resulting in illegal guilty verdicts continuing based on denial,and he did not remember remarks to questions. D. Jurisdictional and Legal Anomalies The plaintiff's continued status as a juvenile by court order, closed from jurisdiction, yet recha rged for the same allegations, underscores significant jurisdictional, and legal anomalies. These include, a de novo trial, lacking jurisdiction, and the characterization of the plaintiff as a "stolen child" in the juvenile system, who, under the law, could never be charged with the crimes alle ged. Despite being 18 years old, and found actually innocent, the plaintiff faced five forces guil ty verdicts, without the application of mitigating circumstances due to counsel's failures, inclu ding collateral sentencing after expo facto, and retroactive, left to fend for himself. CAUSATION The Actions led to Wrongful Convictions for all three cases, and denial of evidence, while viola ting ADA Rights. He had a duty to his client, and a duty to give up being counsel, and engaging other counsel if he couldn't full-fill proper defense, and failed to do so knowingly, and intellig ently. ALIBI WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE NON RETRIEVAL Attorney Logue Failed to retrieve stated evidence, already retrieved, knowing that the evidence was available, and could be obtained possibly, and disregarded such, including starting at federal trial under oath, he spoke to a bill madura, when he couldn’t have, reflecting , he was not even aware of the proper witness’s, and there location, nor any evidence, created absolute ineffective assistance of counsel on all three cases alone. Knowing he was a Juvenile charged as an Adult, stated by plaintiff, and negated that rout e, while the judge himself in jury trial stated it, giving him the defense, and he not taking it, was clear ineffective, indicative of counsel, not having a defense, coincides with the truth, plaintiff stated, when counsel told him he had no F*cking-Defense for him in the sheriff's office. Not obtaining the witnesses, and evidence, but stating he spoke to some, then attempted to scapegoat the fact, by stating they proved he was there shows he did not have a defe nse, but actually was against him rather, coinciding and relevant to the non jury trial judg e having some form of control over him. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, James Robert Tice, opposes the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, [Anthony Logue’s]-[Esq], and contends that the Defendant, in their capacity as a public defender, acted inside, and out side, the scope of their employment, and violated clearly established constitutiona l rights of the Plaintiff, thereby disqualifying them from qualified immunity protection. This opp osition is grounded in the principles established under * U.S.C. § *, and relevant jurisprude nce. II. ARGUMENT A. Public Defender as State Actor The Defendant, serving as a public defender, is recognized as a state actor under * U.S.C. § * * for actions performed, within the scope of their official duties (Polk County v. Dodson, * U.S. * (*)). However, this designation does not grant blanket immunity from liability for actions that violate constitutional rights. B. Clearly Established Rights and Violations Thereof Sixth Amendment Violations: The Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment right to effective assista nce of counsel, was directly violated by, the Defendant's actions. Despite the Plaintiff's insistence on innocence, and preference for a jury trial, the Defendant pressured the Plain tiff, into accepting a non-jury trial, and failed to investigate, crucial alibi witnesses, or present a defense consistent with the Plaintiff's wishes. These actions are contrary to the established duty of effective assistance (Strickland v. Washington, * U.S. * (* )). Fourteenth Amendment Violations: The Defendant's conduct also implicated violations of the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. By acting in a manner that effectively denied the Plaintiff a fair trial, and adequate representation, the Defendant disregarded the Plaintiff's due process rights, as clearly established under the Third Circui t (Mattox v. City of Clairton, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *)). C. Acting Outside the Scope of Employment The Defendant's failure to provide effective assistance, as detailed above, constitutes actions outs ide the scope of their employment as a public defender. The refusal to investigate, advise, or adv ocate on behalf of the Plaintiff, especially when such refusal leads to a deprivation of constituti onal rights, cannot be considered within the legitimate scope of a public defender's duties. D. Overcoming Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public defenders from liability for actions taken within the scope of their official duties, unless they violated clearly established statutory, or constitutional rights of which, a reasonable person would have known. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Defendan t's actions not only violated, clearly established rights, but also fell outside the protective scope of qualified immunity, due to their egregious nature, and direct impact, on the Plaintiff's righ ts.Armstrong v. Squadrito, * F.3d * (7th Cir. *): It established that an ongoing viola tion of a plaintiff's rights can defeat immunity claims. Lewis v. Clarke, * S. Ct. * (*): The Supreme Court held that individual capacity suits against state officials can proceed despite immunity defense. Atkinson v. Taylor, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *): Individual state officials ca n be held personally liable for damages under §*.Bistrian v. Levi, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *): Qualified immunity is defeated if the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established. Rule *(c)(*)(B): Allows an amended complaint to relate back to the date of the original complaint if it arises out of the same conduct. This is not time barred, In Pennsylvania, both the "Ex Parte Young'' doctrine and the "ongoing violation doctrine" apply, Allows a federal court to hear suits against state officials for ongoing constitutional violations, and Ongoing violation doctrine" is invoked, further, neither need to app ly, because time limitations is illegal to apply, based on the sentencing scheme to plaintiff and ongoing violations, causing capital punishment. allowing Plaintiff to bypass certain immunity and time limitation defenses for ongoing out of his control violations. The plaintiff is alleging ongoing constitutional violations, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine also does not apply for 35 years of ongoing consequences. Further ongoing harm extends the statute of limitations. If a wrongful conviction occurred in *-*, *, and the alleged harm is continuing until *, the "ongoing violation doctrine" “{automatically}” extends the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit of plaintiffs. Rule * Compliance: The complaint details specific events (failure to investigate, pressured plea, ignoring disabil ity) that demonstrate the public defender's actions, and how they violated the plaintiff's rights (ri ght to fair trial, due process). This satisfies the requirements of Rule * for a well-pleaded com plaint. Seriousness of Allegations: The public defender's alleged statements ("no defense") and disregard for the plaintiff's disability are concerning to warrant ineffective assistance, and denial of evidence. Violation of Constitutional Rights Violated: First Amendment: Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press. Fourth Amendment: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Fifth Amendment: Right to due process and protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy. Sixth Amendment: Rights related to criminal prosecutions, including the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to confront witnesses, to compulsory process for obtaining wit nesses, and to have the Assistance of Counsel. Plaintiff had no counsel represe nting him at a non, jury trial, he was forced to sit down by the judge, and not repre sent his client, so this denied representation at trial violating his sixth amendme nt, and he let it happen. Eighth Amendment: Protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Fourteenth Amendment: Protection of due process and equal protection under th e law. Juvenile Act Civil Rights Violations (* U.S.C. § *): This allows individuals to sue state, and loca l government officials who have violated their constitutional rights. Common claims inc lude police misconduct, wrongful conviction, excessive force, false arrest, and deprivati on of medical care while in custody. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Violations occur when a state or local government entity or a public accommodation (like a school, workplace, or public space) discriminates against an individual because of their disability. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of *: Prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. This includes harassment or any form of employment discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of *: Prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Fair Housing Act: Prohibits discrimination by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions, and homeowners insurance companies whose discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons because of: Race or color Religion Sex National origin Familial status (including children under the age of * living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of *) Disability Violations of State Laws: Depending on the jurisdiction, plaintiffs may also proceed against defendants for violating specific state laws, which could include state civil rights laws, consumer protection laws, or criminal laws that provide for civil remedies. ARGUMENT A. Comprehensive Violation of Constitutional Rights The Defendant, through their actions and inactions, violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights in several significant ways, as outlined below: Sixth Amendment Violations: The right to effective assistance of counsel is a corne rstone of the Sixth Amendment (Gideon v. Wainwright, * U.S. * (*)). The Defendant's failure to investigate the Plaintiff's case, refusal to consider alibi witnesses, and pressure to accept a non-jury trial, despite the Plaintiff's objections directly, contra vened this right. Furthermore, the Defendant's admission of not knowing how to defend the Plaintiff, and discouraging the pursuit of a defense exemplifies a blatant disregard for the Plaintiff's right to a fair trial.Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel,McQuiggan v. Perkins, * S. Ct. * (*): This case clarifies the standards for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. It emphasizes the importance of showing that the def ense attorney's actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that these deficient actions prejudiced the defendant's case. Strickland v. Washington, * U.S. * (*): This landmark case established the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, to show that the attorney's performance was deficient, and that this deficiency prejudiced plaintiffs' defense. Fourteenth Amendment Violations: The Defendant's actions also infringed upon the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. By acting in a manner that effect ively railroaded the Plaintiff into a guilty verdict, without a fair chance, to contest the cha rges, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's due process rights. This is particularly egreg ious given the Third Circuit's stance on due process violations in criminal cases (Mattox v. City of Clairton, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *)). Further Violating the ADA Rights: Garret v. City of Atlanta, * F.3d * (11th Cir. *). Emotional and Psychological Impact:The public defender's repeated failures to invest igate properly, present alibi witnesses, and advocate for my right to a fair trial have caus ed me significant emotional distress. These actions left me feeling helpless, and denied me, the basic due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution. As a result, I have suffered from anxiety, and depression, illegal sentences, wrongful convictions, that could have been stopped, further highlighting the harm caused by the public defender's ineffec tive assistance. B. Acting Outside the Scope of Professional Duties The Defendant's conduct, as described, falls outside the scope of professional duties expected of a public defender. This includes: Neglecting to perform a reasonable investigation or to present a defense aligned with the Plaintiff's wishes, contrary to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule *.*(a), *.*(a)). Ignoring the Plaintiff's disability and failing to accommodate it in their defense strategy, further exacerbating the violation of the Plaintiff's rights. C. Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply Given the egregious nature of the Defendant's actions, which violated clearly established consti tutional rights, the defense of qualified immunity is inapplicable. The Defendant's conduct not on ly violated statutory and constitutional provisions but did so in a manner that any reasonable atto rney would understand as wrongful. The Defendant's actions have caused significant harm to the Plaintiff, violating fundamental cons titutional rights and professional standards. As such, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, allowing the Plaintiff to seek the necessary relief for the injustices endured. CONCLUSION Given the evidence presented, and the applicable legal standards, the Plaintiff respectfully reques ts that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff has established a plausi ble claim for relief under * U.S.C. § *, demonstrating that the Defendant's actions violated clearly established constitutional rights, and were inside, and outside, the scope of qualified imm unity. Therefore, this case warrants further judicial review, and should proceed to discovery, and trial. IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Given the egregious nature of the violations against the plaintiff and the systemic failures that have perpetuated his wrongful convictions, this lawsuit seeks to rectify the injustices endured by James Robert Tice. The plaintiff requests judicial intervention to address the wrongful convi ctions, the denial of constitutional rights, and the mockery of justice that has characterized his treatment within the judicial system. CONCLUSION The Plaintiff has established a well-pleaded complaint, demonstrating the public defender's state actor status, specific constitutional violations, and actions outside the scope of employment. Evidence supports these claims, with potential for additional actions under Pennsylvania law causing failing to investigate, pressuring a non-jury trial, and not protecting rights during a jury trial - fall outside the scope of their duties, and could be considered deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's rights. Further he was already found to be ineffective in the Assistance of Counsel case * of *.

IS IT STRONG

CAN IT BE BETTER OR STRONGER