## Facts

- Calvin Henderson, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se, sought damages for alleged constitutional violations connected to his arrest, prosecution, and conviction for sexual assault in Pennsylvania state court.
- Henderson sued two assistant district attorneys, two privately retained defense attorneys, and several University of Pittsburgh campus police officers.
- Henderson filed the action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but the defendants were not federal employees.
- A magistrate liberally construed the pro se filing as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and addressed defendants’ motions to dismiss.
- The district court dismissed all claims, concluding (1) the assistant district attorneys were absolutely immune, and (2) the private attorneys and campus police officers were not state actors for § 1983 purposes.

## Issues

1. Whether the assistant district attorneys were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from § 1983 damages claims based on their prosecutorial conduct.
2. Whether Henderson sufficiently alleged action “under color of state law” under § 1983 as to (a) the University of Pittsburgh campus police officers and (b) the privately retained defense attorneys.
3. Whether a pro se complaint miscast as an FTCA action could be treated as a § 1983 complaint at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit approved construing the pro se FTCA complaint as a § 1983 action because the FTCA was inapplicable to non-federal defendants.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against the assistant district attorneys based on absolute prosecutorial immunity for conduct tied to the judicial phase of the criminal process.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against the privately retained defense attorneys because, without allegations of conspiracy or comparable attribution to the state, they did not act under color of state law.
- The court vacated the dismissal as to the University of Pittsburgh campus police officers and remanded, holding the complaint sufficiently alleged they acted under color of state law given their statutory police powers.

## Legal Principles

- Pro se pleadings are construed liberally, and courts may recharacterize mislabeled filings to reach the correct legal framework when the facts suggest a viable claim.
- Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages liability for actions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.
- Privately retained criminal defense counsel are not state actors for § 1983 purposes absent allegations connecting their conduct to the state (such as conspiracy with state officials).
- Campus police officers vested by state law with traditional police powers, including arrest authority, may be treated as acting under color of state law when performing law-enforcement functions.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit sustained immunity for prosecutors and rejected § 1983 liability for privately retained defense counsel absent state attribution, but held that university campus police empowered by state law may act under color of state law, requiring further proceedings on Henderson’s claims against those officers.


Henderson v. Fisher, 631 F.2d 1115 (3d Cir. 1980)