Colabine v. Sacramento County Office of the Public Defender et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/27/2015 DISMISSING this action, without prejudice; plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as moot; and the Clerk shall close this case. CASE CLOSED.(Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS COLABINE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. No. 2:15-cv-0660 AC P v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint and motion to 18 19 proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned 20 Magistrate Judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and Local Rule 305(a). See 21 ECF No. 4. The only named defendant in this action is Hilary Davisson, the Sacramento County 22 23 Public Defender who represented plaintiff in a criminal matter before the Sacramento County 24 Superior Court, in Case No. 12F06176. Review of the website operated by the California courts1 25 1 26 27 28 This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 1 1 indicates that this matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and a 2 decision confirming plaintiff’s conviction was issued by that court on March 23, 2015, in Case 3 No. C074144. Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action on the same day, alleging that Ms. 4 Davisson provided ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Plaintiff seeks another jury trial and 5 damages. 6 In order to state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant 7 was acting under color of state law at the time of the challenged conduct; and (2) defendant’s 8 conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or other 9 laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 27, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds, 10 Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). 11 It is well established that public defenders do not act under color of state law for purposes 12 of Section 1983 when representing a criminal defendant. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 13 325 (1981). This is because “[t]he decisions made by the public defender in the course of 14 representing [her] client were framed in accordance with professional canons of ethics, rather 15 than dictated by any rule of conduct imposed by the State.” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 16 1009 (1982) (citing Polk, 454 U.S. at 318). For this reason, plaintiff is unable to state a 17 cognizable civil rights claim against his public defender, thus requiring dismissal of this action. 18 Plaintiff is informed, however, that after he has exhausted his claims in the California 19 Supreme Court,2 he may seek to pursue a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254. Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner to challenge his conviction 21 and/or sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, a habeas claim 22 must first be exhausted in the state’s highest court before it may be raised in federal court. See 23 Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 26 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot; and 27 28 2 Review of the California courts’ website indicates that plaintiff has not yet pursued in the California Supreme Court the Court of Appeal’s March 25, 2015 decision in Case No. C074144. 2 1 2 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. DATED: April 27, 2015 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?