the state is only responsible where it deprives a criminal defendant such as Petitioner of due process of law, and the state was not responsible for actions of petitioner’s retained counsel. If there was a due process violation from ineffective assistance from Petitioner’s choice of retained counsel, it likely first occurred when Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed; prior to the point of dismissal, there was no state action. See Sceifers, 46 F.3d at 704 (citing Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982)); see also id. (“Indeed, the actions of Sceifers’ deputy public defenders and appointed counsel, which caused the delay, do not constitute state action. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317 n. 4, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981) (<HOLDING>).”). Petitioner conceivably might have, in one
holding um did not act under color of state law when it terminated an employee holding that a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing the traditional functions of counsel to a criminal defendant holding that public defenders do not act under color of state law and therefore are not subject to suit under 42 usc  1983 holding that to prevail on a  1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law in other words that there was state action holding that a town manager did not act under color of state law when making allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff