Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-02689/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-02689-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

OAKLAND DIVISION

JAMISE JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JAIL

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 01-2689 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 224]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has requested the Court determine whether

plaintiff/appellant Jamise Jermaine Calloway’s appeal has been taken in good faith or is frivolous under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). For the reasons that follow, the Court determines that Calloway’s appeal is

frivolous.

BACKGROUND

Calloway brought a section 1983 action against Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County

Sheriff’s Department, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and seven individual

officers of the Contra Costa County Jail. Calloway alleged the defendants used excessive force against

him and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Calloway was diagnosed with end-stage

renal failure and required dialysis treatment every two to three days.

The Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Calloway’s claims for

excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, racial discrimination, and violations of the

Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act because he did not exhaust his

administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) to bring a section 1983 claim. See Docket

No. 219. The Court further granted summary judgment on Calloway’s claim of deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs in favor of defendants Rael, Longstreth, Gray, Chalk, County, Lumb, and

Brooks because there was no indication that these defendants purposefully failed to act to meet

Calloway’s medical needs and because the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The Court

granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department and

Case 4:01-cv-02689-SBA Document 226 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 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 2

Contra Costa County on Calloway’s causes of action for failure to train and for negligent supervision

because the Court found there were no triable issues with regard to whether the municipal policy in

question gave rise to municipal liability under section 1983 and because Calloway offered no evidence

of a pattern or custom of use of excessive force, nor was there any evidence of inadequate training.

Summary judgment on Calloway’s battery claim was unopposed and therefore granted. Finally, the

Court granted summary judgment on the ADA/RA claims because the Court found that Calloway did

not allege that he was denied benefits and services because of his disability, and, alternatively, because

Calloway did not exhaust his administrative remedies on these claims. 

On February 22, 2007, Calloway filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s judgment in favor of the

defendants. See Docket No. 224. In the notice of appeal, Calloway asserts five grounds for appeal, each

premised on the ineffective assistance of his counsel. In the first ground, Calloway contends his counsel

offered ineffective assistance because his attorney failed to show all of Calloway’s attempts to exhaust

his administrative remedies. The second ground for appeal is largely the same. The third ground

contends Calloway’s counsel was ineffective because he deliberately failed to show that Calloway

exhausted his claims and because counsel failed to suppress evidence. In ground number four, Calloway

argues that his counsel provided ineffective assistance because he deliberately failed to produce or

introduce records showing the deliberate indifference of the defendants in providing medical care. In

his fifth and final ground for appeal, Calloway charges that his counsel offered ineffective assistance

for failing to provide Calloway with copies of depositions. 

LEGAL STANDARDS

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) declares that “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good faith requirement is satisfied

if the petitioner seeks review of any issue that is “not frivolous.” Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551

(9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). An action is “frivolous”

for purposes of section 1915 if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 325, 327 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1984). 

ANALYSIS

Case 4:01-cv-02689-SBA Document 226 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 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 3

The issues Calloway raises in his notice of appeal are frivolous because there is no arguable

basis in law for his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution

provides for “the Assistance of Counsel” in “all criminal prosecutions.” U.S. CONST. amend. VI.

Calloway’s case is a civil action, not a criminal prosecution. The Sixth Amendment right to effective

assistance of counsel does not apply to civil proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d

1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996); Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (a

plaintiff in a section 1983 action has no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel); Sanchez

v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Wolfolk v. Rivera, 729 F.2d

1114, 1120 (7th Cir. 1984); Allen v. Barnes Hosp., 721 F.2d 643, 644 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Calloway’s appeal is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

March 15, 2007 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-02689-SBA Document 226 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 3