Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00660/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00660-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

SHANE ANTHONY PERRY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC

DEFENDERS OFFICE; Managing

Public Defenders REBECCA YOUNG

and ROBERT DUNLAP; and Public

Defender SUJONG KIM,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-0660 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff asserts claims against public defenders arising out of their alleged failure to

adequately defend him on pending criminal charges. 

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

Case 4:10-cv-00660-PJH Document 5 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 3
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

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 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 1974. The United States Supreme Court has recently

explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly:: “While legal conclusions can

provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When

there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then

determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129

S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). 

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 

Defendants are public defenders. Public defenders acting as attorneys for criminal

defendants do not act under color of state law, an essential element of an action under §

1983. Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 919-920 (1984); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S.

312, 317-25 (1981). Because no amendment could cure this defect, this case will be

dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127, 1129 (9th

Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to

Case 4:10-cv-00660-PJH Document 5 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 3
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

amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints, unless no amendment could save the

complaint).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.10\PERRY0660.DSM.wpd 

Case 4:10-cv-00660-PJH Document 5 Filed 03/23/10 Page 3 of 3