judgment, the District Court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, Bourdon contends that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants. He argues that his appointed counsel was ineffective and therefore, notwithstanding his representation by that attorney, defendants hindered Bourdon’s access to the state trial court, in violation of his constitutional right of access to the courts, when they denied Bour-don’s request for reference materials. Bourdon, however, has not asserted a cause of action of ineffective assistance of counsel, and, in any event, an ineffectiveness cause of action would be inappropriate in a proceeding brought under § 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 65-66 (2d
holding that a state prisoner may not challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for damages under 42 usc  1983 holding that suits under 42 usc  1983 do not override state immunity holding that 42 usc  1396aa13a is enforceable in a suit under  1983 holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 holding that public defenders do not act under color of state law and therefore are not subject to suit under 42 usc  1983