Myers v. State of California et al
Filing
13
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal Without Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim 12 FIFTEEN DAY DEADLINE, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/30/12. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DAVID MYERS,
10
CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00198-LJO-GBC (PC)
Plaintiff,
11
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
v.
12
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
13
Defendants.
(Doc. 12)
FIFTEEN DAY DEADLINE
14
15
/
16
I.
17
Procedural History
David Myers (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, in this
18
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed his original
19
complaint which commenced this action. Doc. 1. On October 29, 2012, the Court dismissed the
20
complaint with leave to amend. Doc. 9. On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed the first amended
21
complaint which is currently before the Court. Doc. 12.
22
II.
Screening Requirement
23
Plaintiff is a civil detainee. “[T]he rights afforded prisoners set a floor for those that must
24
be afforded . . . civil detainees.” McNeal v. Mayberg, 2008 WL 5114650, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3,
25
2008), citing Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2007) (reversed on other grounds)
26
27
1
28
Plaintiff does not clearly state that he is a civil detainee, however, his original complaint Plaintiff indicates
that he is housed at Coalinga State Hospital. Doc. 1 at 1.
1
1
(quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982). See also Semeneck v. Ahlin, 2010 WL
2
4738065, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2010); Leonard v. Bonner, 2010 WL 3717248, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
3
Sep. 15, 2010); Allen v. Mayberg, 2010 WL 500467, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010). Therefore,
4
though Plaintiff is a detainee and not a prisoner, the Court may refer to the rights of prisoners to
5
determine the rights afforded Plaintiff.
6
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
7
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
8
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
9
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
10
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
11
“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
12
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a
13
claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
14
A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
15
which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
16
support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467
17
U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Synagogue v.
18
United States, 482 F.3d 1058, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007); NL Industries, Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898
19
(9th Cir. 1986). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must accept as true the
20
allegations of the complaint in question, and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the
21
plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421-22
22
(1969); Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010).
23
III.
Plaintiff’s Complaint
24
Plaintiff is currently a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (CSH) in Coalinga,
25
California. Doc. 1. In the complaint, Plaintiff names the following defendants: 1) State of
26
California; 2) Lisa Green (Kern County Public Defender’s Office); and 3) Defense Counsel of Kern
27
County. Doc. 12 at 1-3. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and wants legal counsel to win his case
28
against the state. Doc. 12 at 3.
2
1
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Green was assigned to defend Plaintiff. Doc. 12 at 3.
2
Defendant Green violated the Plaintiff’s right to counsel, so Plaintiff claimed ineffective assistance
3
of counsel. Doc. 12 at 3. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Green betrayed the business code in her
4
conduct with Plaintiff and such conduct was unconstitutional. Doc. 12 at 3. Plaintiff asserts that he
5
has a right to be represented and Defendant Green violated his constitutional rights by failing to hire
6
an expert to assist Plaintiff. Doc. 12 at 3.
7
IV.
Legal Standards and Analysis
8
A.
9
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
10
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
12
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution .
. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,
or other proper proceeding for redress.
13
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A public defender representing a client in the lawyer's traditional adversarial role
14
is not a state actor. Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Polk County
15
v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)).
16
1.
11
Analysis
17
Although in his prior complaint, Plaintiff complains that Defendant Green was a prosecutor
18
who was biased in making the same recommendation to continue his detainment. Doc. 1 at 3.
19
However, in his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Green in her capacity as a
20
public defender, gave ineffective assistance of counsel in deciding not to get Plaintiff an expert.
21
Doc. 12 at 3. As a public defender representing a client in the lawyer's traditional adversarial role
22
is not a state actor, Plaintiff fails to state a claim. Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th
23
Cir.2003) (citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)).
24
B.
25
Plaintiff’s claim based on the alleged ineffective assistance of his defense counsel, would
26
also amount to an attack on the validity of his underlying criminal proceedings, and as such, is not
27
cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless and until he can show that conviction has already been
28
invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d
Heck Barred
3
1
1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir.2005) (applying Heck to civil detainees); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850,
2
855-56 (9th Cir.2003)). A claim challenging the legality of a conviction or sentence that has not
3
been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Edwards v. Balisok, 520
4
U.S. 641, 643 (1997). An action that is barred by Heck should be dismissed for failure to state a
5
claim without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to file a new action if he succeeds in invalidating his
6
conviction. Edwards, 520 U.S. at 649.
7
1.
Analysis
8
In this instance, Plaintiff’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim against Defendant Green
9
in her capacity as defense counsel, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal proceedings
10
and continuing incarceration. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Were Plaintiff to succeed in showing that
11
Defendant Green rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, an award of damages would “necessarily
12
imply the invalidity” of his conviction or civil commitment. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Miccio-Fonseca,
13
410 F.3d at 1139-40. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff'scComplaint must be dismissed for
14
failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B).
15
C.
16
Plaintiff may not bring suit against the state of California for money damages in federal court
17
because it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d
18
1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff fails to link the State of California to any deprivation of rights
19
and, therefore, fails to state a claim.
20
V.
Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Conclusions and Recommendation
21
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section
22
1983. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend "shall be freely
23
given when justice so requires." In addition, "[l]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all
24
possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.
25
2000) (internal citations omitted). However, in this action, it is apparent that the deficiencies in the
26
complaint are not capable of being cured by amendment and, therefore, leave to amend should not
27
be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
28
Accordingly, after screening Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed on November 29, 2012, the
4
1
Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:
2
1.
3
This action be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted under section 1983; and
4
2.
The Clerk fo Court provide Plaintiff a copy of a habeas complaint form.
5
6
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
7
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)
8
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
9
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
10
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
11
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
12
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated:
0jh02o
November 30, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?