Bordelon v. Singh et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on 11/25/2024. (dms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHNATHAN R. BORDELON,
Plaintiff,

8

MISHYA SINGH, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 24-cv-01173-JST

12
Plaintiff has filed a pro se action. His amended complaint (ECF No. 9) is now before the

13
14

Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
DISCUSSION

15
16

A.

Standard of Review

17

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),

22

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d

23

989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020).

24

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

25

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not

26

necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

27

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).

28

While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009).

2

A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

3

cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id.

4

B.

Procedural Background

5

The initial complaint named as defendants Contra Costa County public defenders Mishya

6

Singh and Ilean Baltodano. The initial complaint alleged that defendant Singh’s representation of

7

Plaintiff from September 2022 to August 2023 constituted legal malpractice and that defendant

8

Singh’s supervisor, defendant Baltodano, took no steps to address Plaintiff’s concerns regarding

9

defendant Singh’s representation. The initial complaint sought $2 million; that Plaintiff’s state

10

court criminal proceedings be overturned and dismissed; and that counsel be appointed to

11

represent him in this action. See generally ECF No. 1. The Court dismissed the initial complaint

12

because it did not allege any violation of federal constitutional or statutory law, as is required to

13

bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court identified the following deficiencies in the

14

initial complaint: legal malpractice is a state law claim; a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action may not be

15

brought against a public defender regarding her actions when serving as counsel to a defendant in

16

a criminal proceeding; and the action was likely barred by the Younger abstention principle. See

17

generally ECF No. 7. In the interests of justice, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an

18

amended complaint to correct these deficiencies. Id.

19

C.

20

Amended Complaint
The amended complaint repeats the allegations made in the initial complaint and fails to

21

address the deficiencies identified by the Court. The amended complaint again sues Mishya Singh

22

and Ilean Baltadano, identified as Martinez County Public Defenders. The amended complaint

23

does not seek to bring an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The amended complaint again

24

alleges that, from September 2022 to August 2023, Ms. Singh’s representation of Plaintiff

25

constituted legal malpractice; and that Ms. Singh’s supervisor, Ilean Baltadano, participated in the

26

malpractice by agreeing with Ms. Singh’s statement that Plaintiff was not suffering from a mental

27

illness and did not require a mental health assessment. Plaintiff states that he is bipolar and suffers

28

from depression, complex PTSD, and anxiety. He states that Defendants’ negligence and
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

malpractice forced him to agree to a plea deal. The amended complaint again requests $2 million,

2

and a dismissal of his state court criminal case.

3

The Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts

4

are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377

5

(1994). Generally, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists due to the presence of a federal

6

question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or complete diversity between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

7

Plaintiff does not allege a federal question and has only alleged a state law claim of legal

8

malpractice, see Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013) (legal malpractice claim

9

“indisputably” arises from state, not federal, law). There is no diversity jurisdiction because

10

Plaintiff and Defendants are both citizens of California. This dismissal is with prejudice because

11

granting leave to amend would be futile and because the Court has explained to Plaintiff the

12

specific deficiencies in his pleadings and Plaintiff has been unable to correct them. Leadsinger,

13

Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (futility of amendment is basis for

14

denial of leave to amend); Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir.

15

2009) (district court may, in its discretion, deny leave to amend where there have been repeated

16

failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed).

17

In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to invalidate his conviction or plea

18

bargain, such a challenge must be brought via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Skinner v.

19

Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011) (habeas is “exclusive remedy” for prisoner who seeks

20

“‘immediate or speedier release’” from confinement). The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff two

21

copies of the Court’s form petition for a writ of habeas corpus. And to the extent that Plaintiff is

22

seeking monetary damages for allegedly wrongful conviction or imprisonment, Plaintiff must first

23

prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive

24

order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into

25

question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

26

477, 486-487 (1994).

27

///

28

///
3

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The Clerk is

3

directed to send Plaintiff two copies of the Court’s form petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

4

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The Clerk shall close the case.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: November 25, 2024

7
8

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4