Espino v. Sugar

Filing 28

ORDER ON REMAND; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 10, 2012. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ahm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) KEITH A. SUGAR, ) ) Defendant. _________________________________ ) SANTIAGO SOTO, No. C 09-4575 MMC (PR) Ninth Circuit Case No. 10-16110 ORDER ON REMAND; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK 17 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On September 28, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Together with his complaint, plaintiff filed an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). That same date, the Court notified plaintiff in writing that the action was deficient due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the requisite filing fee or, instead, to submit a completed court-approved IFP application. Specifically, in said notice, plaintiff was advised that he must submit a Certificate of Funds in Prisoner’s Account completed and signed by an authorized officer at the prison, and must attach a copy of his prisoner trust account statement showing transactions for the last six months. Plaintiff was further advised that his failure to pay the filing fee or, alternatively, to file a completed IFP application, within thirty days, would result in dismissal of the action. Along with said notice, plaintiff was sent a copy of the 1 court-approved prisoner’s IFP application, instructions for completing it, and a return 2 envelope. 3 When more than thirty days had passed since the deficiency notice was sent to 4 plaintiff, the Court, by order filed November 13, 2009, dismissed the action without 5 prejudice. Judgment was entered that same date. 6 Plaintiff appealed. In a memorandum filed November 21, 2011, the Ninth Circuit 7 found plaintiff had properly filed a copy of his prisoner trust account statement on September 8 28, 2009 and had properly filed the remainder of his IFP application on October 8, 2009. 9 Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. 10 The mandate from the Ninth Circuit issued on December 20, 2011. 11 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds plaintiff’s claims remain subject to 12 dismissal. 13 DISCUSSION 14 A. Standard of Review 15 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 16 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss 18 any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 19 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 20 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 21 Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 22 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 23 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 24 violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 25 color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 26 B. Legal Claims 27 The sole defendant in this action is an attorney, Keith Sugar (“Sugar”), who was 28 appointed to represent plaintiff in state habeas corpus proceedings. Plaintiff alleges that 2 1 Sugar delayed in obtaining trial transcripts, failed to file a supplemental state habeas petition, 2 and failed to provide plaintiff with copies of certain legal documents. As relief, plaintiff 3 seeks an order directing Sugar to return legal documents, provide copies of investigative 4 reports, and cease all work on plaintiff’s behalf. 5 For purposes of § 1983, public defenders, as well as private lawyers appointed to 6 serve as counsel, do “not act under color of state law,” because their loyalty is not to the 7 appointing authority but to their clients. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 8 (1981). Sugar thus was not acting under color of state law, and, consequently, plaintiff has 9 failed to state a claim against him. Because nothing plaintiff could allege would change this 10 fact, the claims will be dismissed without leave to amend. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 13 1. Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. 14 2. The Clerk shall enter judgment for defendant and close the file. 15 3. The Clerk shall forward a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: January 10, 2012 19 20 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 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?