Bacon v. Bautista et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER-IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, under 28 U.S.C.S. 1915(e)(2)(B) (2015), for failure to state a claim on which relief maybe granted. And, neither liberal interpretation of Plaintiffs claims nor opportunity to amend would lead to a different result. Signed by Judge David Sam on 1/14/16. (jmr)

F/LE8o1N UNITED STATES DfSTRICT
URT, DISTRICT OF UTAH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JAN 1~ 2016
BYD.MAR~ERK

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

Diihci:tRK

MICHAEL A. BACON,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION &
DISMISSAL ORDER

v.
RUDY BAUTISTA et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-CV-174-DS
District Judge David Sam

Plaintiff, Michael A. Bacon, an inmate at Central Utah Correctional Facility, filed this

prose civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2015), proceeding informa pauperis. See 28 id.

§ 1915. His complaint is now before the Court for screening. See id. § 1915(e).
Screening Analysis
A. Standard of Review
This Court shall dismiss any claims in a complaint filed in forma pauperis if they are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary
relief against an immune defendant. See id. § 1915(e)(2)(B). "Dismissal of a prose complaint
for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on
the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend." Perkins v.

Kan. Dep't of Corrs., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). When reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint the Court "presumes all of plaintiffs factual allegations are true and construes them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
Because Plaintiff is proceedingpra se the Court must construe his pleadings "liberally"
and hold them "to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Id. at

1110. However, "[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff's complaint does not relieve [him] of the
burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based." Id. While
Plaintiff need not describe every fact in specific detail, "conclusory allegations without
supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based." Id.
B. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiffs Complaint alleges what appear to be ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
against Rudy Bautista, his public defender in his state criminal case. He also alleges related
claims against Tyson V. Hamilton, the prosecutor in his case.
C. Improper Defendants
To establish a cause of action under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege (1) the deprivation of a
federal right by (2) a person acting under color of state law (without immunity). Gomez v.
Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); Watson v. City ofKansas City, 857 F.2d 690, 694 (10th Cir.

1988).
The Complaint names Defendant Bautista based on his role as Plaintiffs public defender.
"However, the Supreme Court has stated that '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
proceeding."' Garza v. Bandy, No. 08-3152, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17440, at *4 (10th Cir.
Aug. 13, 2008) (unpublished) (quoting Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981)).
Additionally, "'even though the defective performance of defense counsel may cause the trial
process to deprive an accused person of his liberty in an unconstitutional manner, the lawyer who
may be responsible for the unconstitutional state action does not himself act under color of state
law within the meaning of§ 1983."' Id. (quoting Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329 n. 6
(1983)). Thus, Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Bautista may not proceed here.

Further, a prosecutor acting within the scope of his duties enjoys absolute immunity from
suit under§ 1983. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424 (1976). The prosecutor's acts, as
alleged by Plaintiff, appear to relate to advocacy before the court. Defendant Hamilton is
therefore entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from this lawsuit and is dismissed.

D.Heck
"In H eek, the Supreme Court explained that a § 1983 action that would impugn the
validity of a plaintiffs underlying conviction cannot be maintained unless the conviction has
been reversed on direct appeal or impaired by collateral proceedings." Nichols v. Baer, No. 084158, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4302, at *4 (10th Cir. Mar. 5, 2009) (unpublished) (citingHeckv.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)). Heck prevents litigants "from using a§ 1983 action,

with its more lenient pleading rules, to challenge their conviction or sentence without complying
with the more stringent exhaustion requirements for habeas actions." Butler v. Compton, 482
F.3d 1277, 1279 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Heck clarifies that "civil tort actions are not
appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments." 512 U.S. at
486.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants violated his constitutional rights during state criminal
proceedings. These arguments attack Plaintiffs underlying conviction and sentence. Heck
requires that, when a plaintiff requests damages in a § 1983 suit, this Court must decide whether
judgment in the plaintiffs favor would unavoidably imply that the conviction or sentence is
invalid. Id. at 487. Here, it would. If this Court were to conclude that Plaintiffs constitutional
right to effective assistance of counsel was violated in a prejudicial manner, it would be stating
that Plaintiffs conviction and sentence were not valid.
Thus, this complaint "must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated." Id. This has not happened. The Court
must thus dismiss Plaintiffs complaint.
Finally, Plaintiffs request to have his conviction invalidated may be properly raised only
in a habeas corpus petition.

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice,
under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2015), for failure to state a claim on which relief maybe
granted. And, neither liberal interpretation of Plaintiffs claims nor opportunity to amend would
lead to a different result.
DATED this ~ay of January, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

DAVID SAM
United States District Judge