Lockhart v. Sherrer

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 7/27/17. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL ANTHONY LOCKHART,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-03668-JCS (PR)

8

v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9
10

GARY L. SHERRER,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

INTRODUCTION

13

Plaintiff, who consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 7), alleges in this

14
15

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that his defense attorney and the trial judge are conspiring to

16

deprive him of his constitutional rights to a fair trial. He asks this Court to remove his

17

“lawyer from the case” and transfer his proceedings to a district in which his rights will be

18

respected.

19

Plaintiff asks this Court to interfere in ongoing state proceedings. Because

20

precedent commands otherwise, this Court must deny plaintiff‟s request and dismiss his

21

suit.
DISCUSSION

22
23

A.

Standard of Review

24

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that

25

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

26

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

28

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a

1
2

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

3

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

4

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

5

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

6

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal

7

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably

8

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55

9

(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

12

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

13

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

14

B.

15

Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges his attorney is conspiring with the trial court “to have a hearing for

16

public safety, but they are really go[ing] to have a bench trial, violating my right to a jury

17

trial.” (Compl. at 3.) From these allegations, the Court infers that plaintiff is facing

18

ongoing criminal proceedings in state court.

19

There are at least two reasons to dismiss this suit.

20

First, his claims for injunctive relief, the only relief he seeks, cannot proceed.

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). More

24

specifically, federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a

25

showing of the state‟s bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is

26

“flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.” Id. at 46, 53-54.

27

Younger abstention is required when (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending;

28

(2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings
2

1

afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. See Middlesex County Ethics

2

Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).

3

Injunctive relief is available only upon “showing irreparable injury.” Younger, 401

4

U.S. at 46. However, “[c]ertain types of injury, in particular, the cost, anxiety, and

5

inconvenience of having to defend against a single criminal prosecution, could not by

6

themselves be considered „irreparable‟ in the special legal sense of that term. Instead, the

7

threat to the plaintiff‟s federally protected rights must be one that cannot be eliminated by

8

his defense against a single criminal prosecution.” Id.
Abstention is appropriate here because all of the elements of Younger are present.

10

As to the first Younger element, the record shows that plaintiff‟s state court proceedings

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

are ongoing. As to the second Younger element, the Supreme Court has held that “a proper

12

respect for state functions,” such as the ongoing criminal proceedings we see here, is an

13

important issue of state interest. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 (1973)

14

(quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 44). As to the third prong of Younger, the Court finds no

15

reason that plaintiff cannot pursue his claims in state court, such as by filing a motion to

16

change counsel, or a motion to proceed pro se.

17

Furthermore, any interference by this Court in the state court proceedings would

18

cause results disapproved of by Younger. SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d

19

1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008).

20

A second reason to dismiss the suit is that the sole defendant in this action,

21

plaintiff‟s attorney, is not subject to suit under section 1983. His attorney, whether he is a

22

private attorney or a public defender, are not liable under section 1983 because he is not a

23

state actors. Private actors are not liable under section 1983, which provides a means to

24

seek relief against state actors. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). A state-

25

appointed defense attorney “does not qualify as a state actor when engaged in his general

26

representation of a criminal defendant.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 321

27

(1981). Polk County “noted, without deciding, that a public defender may act under color

28

of state law while performing certain administrative [such as making hiring and firing
3

1

decisions], and possibly investigative, functions.” Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 54

2

(1992) (citing Polk County, 454 U.S. at 325.) Under these standards, plaintiff‟s allegations

3

categorically fail to state claims for relief under section 1983.

4

Accordingly, plaintiff‟s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

5

If plaintiff believes he can state claims for relief despite the barriers to suit

6

described above, or if he believes he can overcome these barriers, he may file an amended

7

complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used

8

in this order (17-03668 JCS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the

9

first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints,
plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.

12

1992). Any claims not raised in the amended complaint will be deemed waived. Plaintiff

13

may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference.
CONCLUSION

14
15
16
17
18

This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall
enter judgment in favor of defendant, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 2017
_________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL ANTHONY LOCKHART,

Case No. 17-cv-03668-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

GARY L. SHERRER,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

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 July 27, 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

Michael Anthony Lockhart ID: ALU-772
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
550 6th Street
Oakland, CA 94607

19
20
21

Dated: July 27, 2017

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26

By:________________________
Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

27
28
5