Case ID: f-appx_659/html/0456-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vancois L. D’AMOUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald VILLAREAL; Robert Maddock, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16631
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 02, 2016
    Vancois L. D’Amoun, Pro Se
    Gordon B. Scott, Counsel, Law Office of Gordon B. Scott, Santa Rosa, CA, for De-fendan1>-Appellee Gerald Villareal
    . Joshua A. Myers, Counsel, Sonoma County Counsel’s Office, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Robert Maddock
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vancois L. D’Amoun appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his state court criminal trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed D’Amoun’s claims against defendant Mad-dock because D’Amoun failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Maddock deprived him of a federal right. See id. at 1035-36 (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff [1] must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and [2] must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed D’Amoun’s claims against defendant Villa-real, who represented D’Amoun at his criminal trial, because D’Amoun failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Villareal was acting under color of state law. See id.; Szijarto v. Legeman, 466 F.2d 864, 864 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[A]n attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of state law.”).

D’Amoun’s contentions that the district court was biased against him, and improperly granted Villareal’s motion to dismiss because D’Amoun was neither sent nor served with the motion, are unpersuasive.

Villareal’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, filed on December 11,2015, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.