Owens v. Maness

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/16/16. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KENNETH OLIVER OWENS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

v.
JOHN MANESS,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-04495-JD

12
13

Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

14

original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has submitted a letter that the

15

Court construes as an amended complaint.
DISCUSSION

16
17

STANDARD OF REVIEW

18

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

19

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

21

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

22

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

23

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

24

Cir. 1990).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

26

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

27

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

28

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

1

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

2

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

3

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

4

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

5

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

6

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

7

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

8

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

9

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

12

LEGAL CLAIMS

13

Plaintiff alleges that his defense attorney in his criminal case is not properly preparing his

14

defense. Defendants in state court prosecutions cannot generally sue their lawyers under Section

15

1983 for mistakes in their representation. A public defender does not act under color of state law,

16

an essential element of an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when performing a lawyer’s traditional

17

functions, such as entering pleas, making motions, objecting at trial, cross-examining witnesses,

18

and making closing arguments. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318–19 (1981). A private

19

attorney representing a defendant or appellant also is not a state actor. See Simmons v.

20

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

21

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with

22

ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent

23

extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Federal courts

24

should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the state’s bad faith or

25

harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is “flagrantly and patently violative of express

26

constitutional prohibitions.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost, anxiety and inconvenience of

27

criminal defense not kind of special circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify federal

28

court intervention; statute must be unconstitutional in every “clause, sentence and paragraph, and
2

1
2

in whatever manner” it is applied).
In the original complaint plaintiff sought injunctive relief and money damages. It now
appears that plaintiff’s plea was allowed to be withdrawn so he only seeks money damages from

4

his attorney. Plaintiff’s allegations against his attorney fall within the scope of work that Polk

5

County has determined is not actionable under Section 1983. For this reason, the claim may not

6

proceed. Nor can plaintiff present a state cause of action for malpractice under Section 1983. See

7

Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2001) (“To the extent that the violation of a state law

8

amounts to the deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the

9

federal Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.”) (internal quotation marks and citation

10

omitted). Because plaintiff has already been provided leave to amend and as allowing further

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

amendment would be futile, this action is dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION

12
13

1.

The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

14

2.

The Clerk shall close this action.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: November 16, 2016

17
18
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

KENNETH OLIVER OWENS,

Case No. 16-cv-04495-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

JOHN MANESS,
Defendant.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on November 16, 2016, 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.

16
17
18

Kenneth Oliver Owens ID: Prisoner Id 290606
Maguire Correctional Facility
300 Bradford Street
Redwood City, CA 94063

19
20
21

Dated: November 16, 2016

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24

November 16, 2016

25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4