also Weaver v. Frick, No. 98-15362, 1999 WL 191413, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar.15, 1999) (“[A]n attorney appointed by the court does not act under color of state or federal law when performing the traditional functions of counsel to a criminal defendant.”); Anderson v. Sonenberg, Nos. 96-5192, 96-5308, 1997 WL 196359, at *1 (D.C.Cir. Mar.13, 1997) (“[Pjublic defenders and other attorneys appointed to represent defendants in federal proceedings are not federal officials for purposes of Bivens.”)-, Bradford v. Shankman, No. 85-5150, 1985 WL 13659, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 12, 1985) (“[A] private attorney and a federal public defender do not act under color of federal law for purposes of a Bivens action.”); cf. Davis v. United States, No. CIV-06-1376C, 2007 WL 983206, at *6 (W.D.Okla. Mar.29, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Because McCaughey is not a federal officer,
holding that a federal cause of action for damages arises upon a federal agents unconstitutional conduct holding police officer is a public official holding that federal express despite the use of the word federal in its name is not a federal agency and therefore cannot be sued in this court holding a federal public defender is not a federal officer for purposes of a bivenstype action holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court