Haithcox v. Abbott
Filing
7
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 9/28/2016. Mailed to Haithcox. (TAG, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
TIMOTHY HAITHCOX,
CV 16-72-H-DLC-JTJ
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
CHRISTOPHER D. ABBOTT,
Defendant.
United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston entered findings and
recommendations in this case on August 31, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff
Timothy Haithcox's ("Haithcox") complaint be dismissed for failing to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Haithcox timely filed an objection to the
findings and recommendations, and so is entitled to a de novo review of those
findings and recommendations to which he specifically objects. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(l)(C). This Court reviews for clear error those findings and
recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists ifthe Court is left with a
"definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v.
-1-
Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
After granting Haithcox's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Judge
Johnston reviewed Haithcox's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915
requires dismissal of a case if the court determines that the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law
or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1985). A complaint filed by a
pro se litigant is to be liberally construed and even if it is "inartfully pleaded, must
be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Judge Johnston concluded, and this Court agrees, that the deficiencies in
Haithcox's pleadings cannot be cured, and that dismissal is appropriate because
Haithcox does not allege any viable claim. Haithcox contends that his attorney's
representation was insufficient because the attorney sent him medical records
without putting them in a sealed envelope. Judge Johnston's finding that an
attorney's performance of traditional lawyer duties does not constitute an act
under "the color of state law" is correct. Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325
(1981) ("[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when
performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal
-2-
proceeding.") Thus, Haithcox cannot proceed under a§ 1983 claim.
Haithcox's objections are without merit. He does not reference Judge
Johnston's findings and recommendations in any way, but rather continually
reiterates that his HIPPA privacy rights were violated. As stated above, his
attorney's actions do not involve actions "under the color of state law," and
Haithcox's claim is therefore not appropriate under a§ 1983 claim. Further,
having failed to specifically object to any of Judge Johnston's findings and
recommendations, the Court reviews the record for clear error, and, finding none,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston's findings and recommendations
(Doc. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case and enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall have the docket
reflect that this dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall have the docket
reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in
good faith.
-3-
DATED this
]..S~ay of September,
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-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?