Cofield v. Iscandari

Filing 7

ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION; VACATING JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL ORDER; DISMISSING CASE ON NEW GROUNDS; GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/21/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VINCENT E. COFIELD,
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
MOHAMMAD A. ISCANDARI,
)
)
Defendants.
_________________________________ )

No. C 13-0915 JSW (PR)
ORDER GRANTING
RECONSIDERATION;
VACATING JUDGMENT AND
DISMISSAL ORDER;
DISMISSING CASE ON NEW
GROUNDS; GRANTING IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
(Docket No. 3)

17
18

On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed

19

civil action in this Court. The case was dismissed because Plaintiff had not paid the

20

filing fee nor completed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by the

21

deadline. Plaintiff has filed a motion to reopen the case showing that he filled out his

22

portion of the application and submitted it to prison officials to complete a statement

23

from his inmate trust account and certificate of funds form. Through no fault of Plaintiff,

24

those forms were not completed by officials, the deadline was missed, and the case

25

dismissed. Therefore, the motion to reconsider the case (dkt. 6) is GRANTED and the

26

order and judgment dated May 1, 2013 (dkt. 4, 5) are VACATED.

27
28

A review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) reveals that it does
not state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff claims that defendant, an attorney, provided

1

ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. This claim is not cognizable for two

2

reasons. First, public defenders and private attorneys are not state actors and may not be

3

sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 for their actions in defending an accused in criminal

4

proceedings. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981) (public defenders not

5

state actors); accord Vermont v. Brillon, 129 S. Ct. 1283, 1291-92 (2009); see Simmons

6

v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (private

7

attorneys are not state actors); see also Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.

8

1996) (same). Secondly, if proven true, plaintiff’s claims that he received ineffective

9

assistance of counsel at trial would call into question the validity of his conviction and

10

sentence in state court. As such, the claims are barred under the doctrine of , at least

11

until the conviction and sentence are overturned on appeal, vacated, expunged, or

12

otherwise invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994).

13

Consequently, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for

14

relief.

15
16

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 3) is GRANTED and no
initial partial filing fee is due.

17

The Clerk shall enter a new judgment and close the file.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DATED: May 21, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
VINCENT E COFIELD,

Case Number: CV13-00915 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.

8
MUHAMMAD A ISCANDARI et al,

9
Defendant.

10
11
12
13
14

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on May 21, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Vincent E. Cofield G131012
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 3030
Susanville, CA 96127
Dated: May 21, 2013
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk