Pelly v. Beal Law Office

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
BRANDON PELLY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-01270-jay
BEAL LAW OFFICE.
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________
On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff Brandon Pelly filed a lawsuit against Beal Law
Office. (Docket Entry [“D.E.”] 1). The Court is required to conduct a screening of this action
because Pelly sought and received in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (D.E.
2, 6.) This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for management of all
pretrial matters and for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. Admin.
Order 2013-05.
I.
Pelly filed his Pro Se Complaint on November 24, 2025, using the official form for
complaints for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.E. 1). He names the Beal Law
Firm as the only defendant in this action. (Id. at 2, § III.B, PageID 2). In the Statement of Claim
portion of his complaint, Pelly alleges:
I’ve been in a disable situation for past 15 years. I sought out representation, and
they accepted. Now other hands on my case say it’s been waiting on them to set
hearing for the last months just waiting. My civil rights have been violated. Case I
seek my medical care urgently. Title II and XVI have both cleared. I’ve been patient
for 5 years. It’ll be 6 years Jan. 7, 2026.
Case 1:25-cv-01270-JDB-jay Document 7 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

2
(Id. at 2–3, § IV, PageID 2-3). In terms of relief, Pelly states “I would like to have my SSDI, SSI
that I was seeking. Why are they waiting and I’m the one who is hurting. I’m not able to work
without the treatment I need. (Punitive Damage) (Defamation of Character.)” (Id. at 3, § V, PageID
3.) Finally, Pelly notes that an “amended coming soon to detail situation.” (Id. at 3, § VI, PageID
3).
II.
When a Court grants an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, it has an additional
responsibility: screen the complaint and decide whether it “is frivolous or malicious” or “fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also McGore,
114 F.3d at 608. Although a pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings and
filings, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In contrast, a complaint
is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate
if the complaint lacks an arguable basis when filed. McGore, 114 F.3d at 612.
III.
Pelly filed this suit using a form complaint designated for § 1983 cases. To establish a
prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil rights plaintiff must establish that: (1) the
defendant acted under color of state law; and (2) the offending conduct deprived the plaintiff of
rights secured by federal law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “If a plaintiff fails to make
Case 1:25-cv-01270-JDB-jay Document 7 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

3
a showing on any essential element of a § 1983 claim, it must fail.” Redding v. St. Eward, 241 F.3d
530, 532 (6th Cir. 2001).
Pelly alleges that the Beal Law Firm represents him in a social security disability
proceeding and that he is dissatisfied with the speed in which his case is being litigated. Pelly’s
compliant should be dismissed because the Beal Law Firm is private business, and it is not
plausibly alleged that the Beal Law Firm was acting under color of state law during its course of
representing Pelly.
In order to act under the color of state law, a defendant in a § 1983 action must have
exercised the power “possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the
wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.” West, 487 U.S. at 49. “A private business
does not act under color of state law, and thus is not a ‘state actor,’ unless its conduct is ‘fairly
attributable to the state.’” Brite Fin. Servs., LLC v. Bobby's Towing Serv., LLC, 461 F. Supp. 3d
549, 563 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (citing Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). Courts
uniformly have held that defense counsel, whether appointed or retained, whether in state or federal
court, is not acting under color of law for purposes of § 1983. See West v. Adkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49
(1988) (holding that a public defender does not act under color of sate law when performing a
lawyer's traditional function as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding); Otworth v.
Vanderploeg, 61 F. App'x 163, 165 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[A] lawyer representing a client is not, by
virtue of being an officer of the court, a state actor under color or law within the meaning of §
1983.”) James v. Mann, 234 F.3d 1268, 1268 (6th Cir. 2000) (“James's retained attorney was not
a person acting under color of state law so as to be subject to suit under § 1983.”); Mulligan v.
Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231, 233 (6th Cir. 1968) (holding that a private attorney does not act under
color of state law despite the fact that he or she was appointed by the court).
Case 1:25-cv-01270-JDB-jay Document 7 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

4
IV.
Accordingly, since any professional acts performed by the Beal Law Firm cannot be
considered acts done under color of state authority, Plaintiff Brandon Pelly’s claim lacks an
arguable basis in law and should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Respectfully submitted this the 25th day of November, 2025.
s/Jon A. York
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MUST BE FILED WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A
COPY OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). FAILURE
TO FILE THEM WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER
AND/OR FORFEITURE OF OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND ANY FURTHER
APPEAL.
Case 1:25-cv-01270-JDB-jay Document 7 Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID
<pageID>