Fuller v. Haynal
Filing
15
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/1/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2013)
1
2
*E-Filed 8/1/13*
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
BRUCE L. FULLER,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. C 13-0172 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
ANDREW JOHN HAYNAL,
14
Defendant.
15
/
16
INTRODUCTION
17
This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state
18
19
prisoner. The original complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff filed a first
20
amended complaint, and the action was reopened. The Court now reviews the first amended
21
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
DISCUSSION
22
23
24
A.
Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner
25
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
26
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and
27
dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
28
No. C 13-0172 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
1
be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.
2
§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica
3
Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
4
5
to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
6
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
7
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
8
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
9
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from
11
the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).
12
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
13
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
14
(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.
15
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
16
B.
17
Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that his attorney violated his federal constitutional rights when he
18
destroyed without plaintiff’s consent files related to plaintiff’s legal proceedings. A state-
19
appointed defense attorney “does not qualify as a state actor when engaged in his general
20
representation of a criminal defendant.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 321 (1981).
21
Polk County “noted, without deciding, that a public defender may act under color of state law
22
while performing certain administrative [such as making hiring and firing decisions], and
23
possibly investigative, functions.” Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 54 (1992) (citing
24
Polk County, 454 U.S. at 325.) Under this standard, plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a
25
claim for relief under § 1983. As put forth in the complaint, counsel’s destruction of certain
26
files was neither an administrative nor investigative function constituting action by a state
27
actor, as those functions are described by binding legal authority. In allegedly destroying his
28
No. C 13-0172 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
2
1
files, it appears that defense counsel was a private, not a state, actor, and therefore not liable
2
under § 1983. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Accordingly, the action is
3
DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendant, and close the file.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 1, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. C 13-0172 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
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?