Sapp v. Klaus

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2014)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

vs.

8

DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
DAVID KLAUS,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,

7

9

No. C 13-04672 YGR (PR)

RAMON SAPP,

Defendant.

11
12

/

Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputy

13

Public Defender David Klaus arising out of Defendant Klaus's alleged failure to adequately defend

14

him on criminal charges for which he was eventually convicted. He has also filed a motion for leave

15

to proceed in forma pauperis.

16
17

DISCUSSION
A.

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

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

26

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

27

alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

28

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

1
2

B.

Legal Claim
As mentioned above, Plaintiff is suing Defendant Klaus, his public defender. However,

3

public defenders acting as attorneys for criminal defendants do not act under color of state law, an

4

essential element of an action under § 1983. Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 919-920 (1984); Polk

5

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-25 (1981). Because no amendment could cure this defect, this

6

case will be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127, 1129 (9th

7

Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend to

8

correct any deficiency in their complaints, unless no amendment could save the complaint).

9

CONCLUSION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

11

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, terminate all pending motions as moot, and

12
13
14

close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

January 3, 2014
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.13\Sapp4672.DISM(pd).frm

2