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)
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?