Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02547/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02547-1/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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.08\Clark02547_dismissal.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND DONALD CLARK,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JOHN F. SCHUCK,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-02547 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the California State Prison - Corcoran, has filed a pro

se civil rights complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against defendant, a

court appointed appellate attorney who represented plaintiff in his state criminal

appeal. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed

in a separate order. The Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a).

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). The court must identify cognizable

Case 5:08-cv-02547-JW Document 13 Filed 08/14/08 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.08\Clark02547_dismissal.wpd 2

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or

“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. §

1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep’t., 901 F.2d 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 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 of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff claims that defendant: 1) engaged in “criminal malpractice,” and 2)

“obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit the same.” (Compl. 2.)

The first claim must fail because one cannot sue his lawyer for allegedly

ineffective assistance or malpractice in a § 1983 action. An attorney performing a

lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in criminal proceedings does

not act under color of state law, as a person must to be liable under § 1983. See Polk

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (public defender does not act under

color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a

defendant in a criminal proceeding); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th

Cir. 1981). The allegations of the complaint concern alleged deficiencies in

defendant’s representation of plaintiff during his criminal appeals. They thus fall

squarely within the scope of work that Polk County has determined is not actionable

under § 1983. Accordingly, this claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Plaintiff’s second allegation states that defendant engaged in a “RICO

conspiracy to obstruct justice and deny [plaintiff’s] federal grounds for appeal.” 

(Compl. 3.) This claim fails. To state a civil RICO claim, plaintiff must allege: (1)

conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity (5)

Case 5:08-cv-02547-JW Document 13 Filed 08/14/08 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.08\Clark02547_dismissal.wpd

causing injury to plaintiff’s business or property. Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F. 3d 817, 825

(9th Cir. 2001) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)). Civil rights violations and injury to

reputation do not fall within the statutory definition of “racketeering activity” and

fail to state a RICO claim. See Bowen v. Oistead, 125 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir.

1997). Plaintiff cannot meet the requirements to state a RICO claim because even if

he were permitted to amend the complaint to allege civil rights violations by

defendant, such violations would not be fall within the statutory definition of

“racketeering activity” for a RICO claim. Id. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon

which may be granted under § 1983, and no amendment can cure this defect. 

Accordingly, this claim is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

 If plaintiff wishes to challenge his conviction and/or sentence, a petition for

writ of habeas corpus is the exclusive method by which he may challenge a state

court conviction in this court. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 

Before he may file a federal petition, however, plaintiff must exhaust state judicial

remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the

highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and

every issue he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A),( c);

Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted and is DISMISSED with prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

August 12, 2008

Case 5:08-cv-02547-JW Document 13 Filed 08/14/08 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND D. CLARK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN F. SCHUCK, 

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-02547 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached,

by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed,

by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Raymond Donald Clark D-99370

California State Prison - Corcoran

P. O. Box 8800

Corcoran, Ca 93212

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

8/14/2008 8/14/2008 /s/

Case 5:08-cv-02547-JW Document 13 Filed 08/14/08 Page 4 of 4