Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-08166/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-08166-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BENNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

PROP. 47 PUBLIC DEFENDER, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 19-08166 BLF (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

GRANTING PERMISSION FOR 

ELECTRONIC FILING

(Docket No. 6)

Plaintiff, a state parolee, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against the Public Defenders Lara Wallem and Maried O’Keefe of the 

“Public Defenders for Prop 47 Department,” and the Sixth District Appellate Program 

(“SDAP”). Dkt No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and a motion for permission for electronic filing. Dkt. Nos. 2, 6. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

Case 5:19-cv-08166-BLF Document 7 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Northern District of California

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 42 U.S.C. § 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).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff seeks money damages “for injuries resulting before and after the final 

outcome of Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings resulting to reversal of (1) a criminal 

conviction of a felony and (2) reversal of deprivation of equal access to Prop 47 relief 

following the new law under PC § 1170.18(a) proceedings.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. Plaintiff 

claims he was “falsely in prison after already serving the period (sentence) of time for 

which is valid exceeding his credit for time served and parole period,” and that “had the 

error... not occurre[d] he would have been off of parole in 2015 (while pending post 

conviction appeal in prison) rather than in 2019 where he is no longer in prison but 

illegally on parole.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Wallmen and O’Keefe, 

both told him that he did not qualify for Proposition 47, and that later Defendant Wallmen 

admitted that she made an error because she thought he was not in custody. Id. at 3-4, 6. 

When Plaintiff pursued the matter with the SDAP,1they also “denied effective assistance 

of counsel” by failing to pursue the issue on appeal. Id. at 4. Plaintiff asserts that

defendants’ actions amount to malpractice, and that it took two appeals before their error 

was fixed. Id. at 3, 5. Plaintiff also claims that there is evidence of “actual innocence of 

1 According to their website, the Sixth District Appellate Program is a nonprofit 

organization that is contracted by the Sixth District as “an administrator for the purpose of 

assigning and evaluating appointed counsel in indigent appeals.” See

http://www.sdap.org/aboutsdap.html.

Case 5:19-cv-08166-BLF Document 7 Filed 06/10/20 Page 2 of 6
3

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

Northern District of California

the felony sentence or conviction” and seeks money damages for injury caused by the 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 5. 

Plaintiff refers to a federal habeas case in this district for “information to this 

claim,” i.e., Case 16-cv-1198(JD). Id. at 3. In that habeas matter, Plaintiff asserted that he 

should receive a reduction in his sentence due to Proposition 47.2 See Bennett v. Asuncion, 

Case No. 16-cv-01918 JD (PR), Dkt. No. 7 at 2. The district court dismissed the claim for 

failure to state a cognizable claim for relief because it concerned a matter of state 

sentencing law and did not present a cognizable federal habeas claim. Id. at 3. The federal 

habeas petition was denied on the merits of the remaining claims. Id., Dkt. No. 43. 

This action against public defenders and attorneys representing him on appeal must 

fail because he cannot sue his lawyer for allegedly ineffective assistance or malpractice in 

a § 1983 action. An attorney performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a 

defendant in criminal proceedings does not act under color of state law, as a person be

under § 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (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); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1345 

(9th Cir. 1981). The allegations of the complaint concern deficiencies in Plaintiff’s 

appellate attorneys’ representation during his criminal appeals. They thus fall squarely 

within the scope of work that Polk County has determined is not actionable under § 1983. 

Accordingly, those claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s claim for damages based on “actual innocence,” it is not 

clear whether such a claim is ripe. In order to recover damages for an allegedly 

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose 

2

“Proposition 47 makes certain drug-and-theft related offenses misdemeanors, unless the 

offenses were committed by certain ineligible defendants. These offenses had previously 

been designated as either felonies or wobblers (crimes that can be punished as either 

felonies or misdemeanors).” People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091 (2015). 

Case 5:19-cv-08166-BLF Document 7 Filed 06/10/20 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Northern District of California

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff 

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

by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such 

determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas 

corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing 

that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not 

cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. The fact that Plaintiff was resentenced under 

Proposition 47 does not render the original conviction invalid per se. In other words, the 

fact that the punishment for the underlying conviction was changed because the State 

reclassified his offense from a felony to a misdemeanor does not mean that Plaintiff was 

found “actually innocent” of the original offense. Furthermore, the Court notes that 

Petitioner’s federal habeas action, which was denied on the merits, did not include a claim 

of actual innocence. Bennett v. Asuncion, Case No. 16-cv-01918 JD (PR), Dkt. No. 7. 

Plaintiff must provide proof that the conviction has been invalided by providing supporting 

documentation, e.g., a copy of the order reversing the conviction on appeal, an executive 

order, or a federal writ of habeas corpus. The action will be dismissed with leave to amend 

for Plaintiff to provide such proof, showing that this action is not Heck-barred. Plaintiff 

must also name the proper Defendant for such a claim, i.e., the county of conviction, since 

the named defendants are not liable for such a claim. 

C. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) at the outset 

of this action while he was still in custody. Dkt. No. 2. Since that time, Plaintiff filed 

notice that he is no longer in custody and has been released to the public. Dkt. No. 4. 

Accordingly, the Court designates the motion as a non-prisoner application, which requires

the same information as a prisoner application but without the supporting documentation 

from prison officials. The application is GRANTED based on the showing of indigency. 

Dkt. No. 2. No initial filing fee is due at this time. 

Case 5:19-cv-08166-BLF Document 7 Filed 06/10/20 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Northern District of California

D. Electronic Filing

Plaintiff has filed a motion for permission for electronic case filing. Dkt. No. 6. 

Plaintiff states that he has reviewed the requirements for e-filing and agrees to abide by 

them, and that he has regular access to the technical requirements necessary to e-file 

successfully. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause and GRANTS the motion. This 

case is now designated as an e-filing case. If he has not already done so, Plaintiff should 

consult the Court’s public website, www.cand.uscourts.gov, click on the “ELECTRONIC 

CASE FILING” link, and register himself. Plaintiff is advised that after this order is filed, 

all documents (orders and motions from opposing parties) will be served on Plaintiff only 

electronically and no paper copy will be sent to him. Therefore, Plaintiff should regularly 

check his mail for notices regarding any filings in this action. Furthermore, all Plaintiff’s 

documents must be e-filed. As an e-filing litigant, Plaintiff may view and download any 

order or motion filed by an opponent in the case once without charge. Plaintiff is 

responsible for making sure that his electronically filed documents actually get filed.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight 

(28) days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using 

the court’s form complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil 

case number used in this order, i.e., Case No. C 19-08166 BLF (PR), and the words 

“AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on 

the form in order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended 

complaint supersedes the original, and Plaintiff may not make references to the original 

complaint. Claims not included in the amended complaint are no longer claims and 

defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 

Case 5:19-cv-08166-BLF Document 7 Filed 06/10/20 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

Defendants Lara Wallmen, Maried O’Keefe, and the Sixth District Appellate 

Program are DISMISSED from this action as Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim 

against them. The Clerk shall terminate them from this action, along with “Prop. 47 Public 

Defendants Department,” which was simply the department under which Plaintiff was 

attempting to identify Defendant Wallmen and O’Keefe. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. 

Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended 

complaint in accordance with the above in the time provided will result in the 

dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

Dkt. No. 2.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for permission for electronic case filing is GRANTED. 

Dkt. No. 6. The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s form complaint with a copy 

of this order to Plaintiff. This will be the last time that items are mailed in hardcopy to 

Plaintiff who will hereafter be treated as an e-filing litigant. Plaintiff must therefore e-file 

the amended complaint in the time provided above. See supra at 5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __June 10, 2020____________ ________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Pending Motions

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.19\08166Bennett_dwlta

Case 5:19-cv-08166-BLF Document 7 Filed 06/10/20 Page 6 of 6