Smith v. Sacramento County Public Defender et al

Filing 4

ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 04/20/15 ORDERING Clerk to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action; case assigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. New Case Number: 2:14-cv-2810 TLN AC (PC). RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&Rs due within 14 days. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH ARDELL SMITH,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-02810 AC P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATIONS

PUALA STEINLO,

15

Defendants.

16
The only named defendant in this action is Puala Steinlo,1 a public defender who

17
18

represented plaintiff in a criminal matter. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges, in effect, that she

19

provided him ineffective assistance of counsel. Plaintiff has also requested authority pursuant to

20

28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis and appears to qualify for such status. ECF No. 2.

21

However, the court will not assess a filing fee at this time. Instead, it will be recommended that

22

the petition be summarily dismissed.
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) defendant

23
24

was acting under color of state law at the time the act complained of was committed; and (2)

25

defendant's conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the

26

Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled

27
28

1

Defendant was identified by plaintiff as “Sacramento County Public Defender employee Puala
Steinlo.” ECF No. 1.
1

1

on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Public defenders do not act under

2

color of state law for purposes of § 1983. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).

3

This court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim under § 1983 because the only

4
5
6
7
8

named defendant was not acting under color of state law.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a
United States District Judge to this action.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

9

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

10

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

11

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

12

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

13

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

14

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

15

(9th Cir. 1991).

16

DATED: April 20, 2015

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2