Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02344/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02344-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1986 Neglect of Duty

---

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

SUSAN MAE POLK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUDD MACKENZIE, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-2344 MMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On May 6, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 13, 2008, plaintiff

filed a first amended complaint. By separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has

been granted 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 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

Case 3:08-cv-02344-MMC Document 7 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 4
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

of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

In her first amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that from the time she was arrested, in

October 2002, on charges of murdering her husband, until the time she chose to represent

herself at her criminal trial in 2006, several attorneys violated her constitutional rights by

making unauthorized statements to the press that prejudiced her ability to obtain a fair trial,

obstructing her access to the courts, and, generally, providing inadequate legal counsel

during pre-trial and trial proceedings. She also makes claims of legal malpractice related to

the handling of certain civil matters. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state cognizable claims for relief under § 1983. To the

extent plaintiff claims that private attorneys who represented her during pre-trial and trial

proceedings violated her constitutional rights, no claim is stated because attorneys in private

practice are not state actors, and therefore do not act under color of state law, an essential

element of a § 1983 claim. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d

1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). Similarly, to the extent plaintiff claims her constitutional rights

were violated when she was represented by a public defender, no claim is stated because

public defenders do not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when performing

a lawyer’s traditional functions. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981). 

Additionally, plaintiff’s claims for legal malpractice do not come within the jurisdiction of

the federal courts. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly,

plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed. 

Plaintiff further alleges she was defamed by the Contra Costa County probation

officer who wrote the sentencing report after plaintiff was convicted. She states that because

of false statements made in the report, her pending criminal appeal and her potential for

release on parole in the future will be negatively impacted. She also maintains that prison

officials have relied on the report to determine her classification and housing placement at

the Central California Women’s Facility (“CCWF”), where she is incarcerated, and that she

has been assaulted by correctional officers at CCWF because of statements in the report. 

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and to have the report redacted from her prison file. 

Case 3:08-cv-02344-MMC Document 7 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct on the part of the probation officer in the

preparation of a recommendation and report for the sentencing judge fail to state a cognizable

claim for relief. “Probation officers preparing reports for the use of state courts possess an

absolute judicial immunity from damage suits under § 1983 arising from acts performed

within the scope of their official duties.” Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 157 (9th Cir.1986). 

Accordingly, such claim will be dismissed.

To the extent plaintiff alleges the report has adversely affected her classification and

placement at CCWF, and has resulted in her being mistreated by correctional officers at

CCWF, such claims are not properly brought in the Northern District of California. Venue

may be raised by the court sua sponte where the defendant has not filed a responsive pleading

and the time for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.

1986). When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, venue is proper in (1) the district

in which any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same state; (2) the

district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; or

(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the

action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Here, according to plaintiff’s allegations, the prison officials responsible for plaintiff’s

classification and housing placement, and the correctional officers responsible for mistreating

plaintiff, are located at CCWF; further, the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred at

CCWF. CCWF is located in Chowchilla, in Madera County, California; Madera County is

within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). As a result, venue is proper in the Eastern District of California, not

in the Northern District. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims as to her placement and treatment at

CCWF will be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). After exhausting her administrative

remedies, which plaintiff states she is in the process of doing, plaintiff may pursue any claims

related to the conditions of her confinement at CCWF in the Eastern District. 

Case 3:08-cv-02344-MMC Document 7 Filed 08/19/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff’s claims of constitutional violations and legal malpractice against her

former attorneys are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s claim of defamation against the Contra Costa County probation officer

who wrote the sentencing report after plaintiff was convicted is hereby DISMISSED with

prejudice. 

3. Plaintiff’s claims against prison officials and correctional officers at CCWF are

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing such claims in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 19, 2008 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02344-MMC Document 7 Filed 08/19/08 Page 4 of 4