Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04225/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04225-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHENG CHENG,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

STEVEN A. CHASE,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-4225 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Mateo County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

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

which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

Case 3:08-cv-04225-WHA Document 3 Filed 09/12/08 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

2

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1986-87. 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff seeks to sue his public defender defense attorney for ineffective representation

in his criminal case. Public defenders, however, do not act under color of state law in

representing their clients, and thus cannot be sued under Section 1983. Polk County v. Dodson,

454 U.S. 312, 317-25 (1981); Briley v. State of California, 564 F.2d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 1977)

(neither appointed nor retained defense attorneys act under color of state law). For this reason

plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim against the defendant. Because there is no way the

complaint can be amended to allow him to sue this defendant on this claim, the complaint will

be dismissed without leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Because of the dismissal, plaintiff may

ignore the clerk’s notice regarding the filing fee sent to him on September 8, 2008. The clerk

shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.08\CHENG4225.DSM.wpd 

Case 3:08-cv-04225-WHA Document 3 Filed 09/12/08 Page 2 of 2