Cochran v. Stavris

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Plaintiff's Motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 2/1/12.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Howard Cochran,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13

Christopher Stavris,
Defendant.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-2098-PHX-RCB (JFM)
ORDER

15
16

Plaintiff Howard Cochran, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix,

17

Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an Order filed

18

on January 23, 2012, the Court dismissed the Complaint and this action for failure to state

19

a claim without leave to amend because Plaintiff could not amend the Complaint to state a

20

claim. (Doc. 10.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 12.)

21

Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the Complaint. (Doc. 13.) That motion will be

22

denied for three reasons. First, this action has been dismissed and judgment entered.

23

Second, as noted above, the Court has already concluded that his Complaint in this case

24

cannot be amended to state a claim.1 Third, Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended

25
26

1

In his Complaint, Plaintiff sued his former criminal defense attorney for violations
of his constitutional rights. As the Court previously stated:

27
28

A prerequisite for any relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are allegations to support
that a defendant acted under the color of state law. Whether an attorney

1

complaint with his motion, which is required in order to seek leave to amend. For all three

2

reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint will be denied.

3
4
5

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is
denied. (Doc. 13.)
DATED this 1st day of February, 2012.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

representing a criminal defendant is privately retained, a public defender, or
court-appointed counsel, he does not act under color of state law. See Polk
County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1981); Miranda v. Clark County,
Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

28
Doc. 10 at 4.
-2-