Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01349/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01349-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIMON V. CAZARES, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMIE L. HARMON, et al.,

Defendant.

___________________________________

_ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-1349 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the attorneys who represented him in criminal

proceedings in state court. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

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

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim

under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).

Plaintiff claims his attorneys “embezzled” the fee he paid them, and provided him

Case 3:05-cv-01349-MMC Document 5 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1Such claims may be cognizable in the state courts or before the state bar.

2The Clerk’s notice to plaintiff, that the application was incomplete, was returned to the

Court as undeliverable because plaintiff was not located at the address provided in the

complaint. 

2

with deficient representation at his criminal trial and on direct appeal. Attorneys in private

practice are not state actors. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d

1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996)

(holding private counsel are private actors). Consequently, services performed by private

counsel in connection with a lawsuit do not constitute action under color of state law, see

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981); Briley v. California, 564 F.2d

849, 855-56 (9th Cir. 1977), and claims for legal malpractice based thereon do not come

within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, see id.1 Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against

his attorneys are DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. In light of

this dismissal, plaintiff’s incomplete2 application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED

and no fee is due. 

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2005

 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01349-MMC Document 5 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2