Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04197/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04197-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID PERRYMAN, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4197 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 3)

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail, has filed a pro

se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that an investigator on his 

criminal case defrauded the courts regarding funding on his criminal case. He has also

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which is now GRANTED in a separate

order filed simultaneously (docket no. 3).

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. See 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. See id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

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

Case 3:06-cv-04197-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/10/07 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

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a violation of 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claim

In this case, Plaintiff has sued a criminal case investigator, a private individual. 

A private individual generally does not act under color of state law. See Gomez v.

Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Purely private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is

not covered under § 1983. See Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 559

(9th Cir. 1974). Simply put: there is no right to be free from the infliction of

constitutional deprivations by private individuals. See Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich,

92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Attorneys in private practice are not state actors. See Simmons v. Sacramento

County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kimes v. Stone,

84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) (attorneys are private actors). Services performed

by a private attorney in connection with a lawsuit do not constitute action under color

of state law. See Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981); Briley v.

California, 564 F.2d 849, 855-56 (9th Cir. 1977). The same reasoning applies to

claims regarding investigators used by private attorneys. As a result, these claims do

not come within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1345.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED.

Plaintiff has also named numerous other individuals, including the Governor,

Attorney General, Superior Court, Bar Association and a private attorney. Plaintiff

does not identify any factual allegations against these individuals. Instead, his

complaint states that he “never know[s] who to actual [sic] name so I name everyone

hoping you will name proper defendants.” Because the Court cannot discern any basis

Case 3:06-cv-04197-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/10/07 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

for liability against any of these other individuals based on the allegations in the

complaint, they are DISMISSED from this action. As such, Plaintiff’s complaint fails

to state a claim under § 1983 against any of the named Defendants and must be

DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing his claims in a proper forum. 

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The

Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04197-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 3