Davis v. Lefcourt
Filing
10
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/17/17. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JOHN LIMBIRD DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
V. ROY LEFCOURT,
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-04980-JD
12
13
Plaintiff, a detainee, 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 filed an amended
15
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).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by
9
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 did not properly handling his criminal case.
14
Plaintiff seeks money damages. Defendants in state court prosecutions cannot generally sue their
15
lawyers under Section 1983 for mistakes in their representation. A public defender does not act
16
under color of state law, an essential element of an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when
17
performing a lawyer’s traditional functions, such as entering pleas, making motions, objecting at
18
trial, cross-examining witnesses, and making closing arguments. Polk County v. Dodson, 454
19
U.S. 312, 318–19 (1981). A private attorney representing a defendant or appellant also is not a
20
state actor. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir.
21
2003).
22
Plaintiff’s allegations against his attorney fall within the scope of work that Polk County
23
has determined is not actionable under Section 1983. For this reason, the claim may not proceed.
24
Nor can plaintiff present a state cause of action for malpractice under Section 1983. See Ove v.
25
Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2001) (“To the extent that the violation of a state law amounts
26
to the deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal
27
Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To
28
the extent that this may have occurred as part of a federal criminal trial, plaintiff is still not entitled
2
1
to relief. Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (attorney not a federal actor for
2
purposes of Bivens action). Because plaintiff has already been provided leave to amend and
3
because providing further amendments would be futile, this case is dismissed without leave to
4
amend.
CONCLUSION
5
6
1.
The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
7
2.
The Clerk shall close this case.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated: January 17, 2017
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
JOHN LIMBIRD DAVIS,
Case No. 16-cv-04980-JD
Plaintiff,
5
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6
7
V. ROY LEFCOURT,
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 January 17, 2017, 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
John Limbird Davis
#16664426
850 Bryant Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
19
20
21
Dated: January 17, 2017
22
23
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
24
25
26
27
By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO
28
4
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?