Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02971/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02971-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV. S-09-2971 LKK GGH PS

vs.

RUSSLE GRIFFIN,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order of December 3, 2009, plaintiff was informed that his application for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis was deficient. Plaintiff has now submitted another

application that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently

without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall be collected

and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in

plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Case 2:09-cv-02971-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Determining plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the

required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at

any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against

an immune defendant. 

A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984); Jackson

v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

A complaint, or portion thereof, fails to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt

there is no set of supporting facts entitling plaintiff to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under

this standard, the court must accept as true its allegations, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe it in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and

resolve all doubts in plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 ( 1969). 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before

dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230.

Plaintiff was warned in the previous order that if he submitted a corrected in

forma pauperis application, his complaint would probably be dismissed.

The court is unable to determine a jurisdictional basis for this action. A federal

court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by the

Constitution and by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114

S. Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 provides that the judicial power of the United

Case 2:09-cv-02971-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 5
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

3

States is vested in the Supreme Court, “and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from

time to time ordain and establish.” Congress therefore confers jurisdiction upon federal district

courts, as limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-

99, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (1992). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time

by either party or by the court. See Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93

F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal

question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Statutes which regulate specific subject

matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J.

Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5. Unless a complaint presents a plausible

assertion of a substantial federal right, a federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v.

Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S. Ct. 773, 776 (1945). A federal claim which is so insubstantial as

to be patently without merit cannot serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hagans v.

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 587-38, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 1379-80 (1974).

For diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, each plaintiff must be

diverse from each defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. For federal

question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint must either (1) arise under a

federal law or the United States Constitution, (2) allege a “case or controversy” within the

meaning of Article III, section 2, or (3) be authorized by a jurisdiction statute. Baker v. Carr,

369 U.S. 186, 198, 82 S. Ct. 691, 699-700, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962). 

The complaint alleges that defendant Griffin, plaintiff’s former defense attorney,

was ineffective in representing him in his criminal trial. The allegations in the complaint assert a

claim for negligence only, which does not implicate federal law. Although plaintiff references

the Civil Rights Act in the caption of his filing, it is pre-printed on the form complaint plaintiff

has utilized. Plaintiff also mentions in passing that defendant “purposely violated plaintiff’s

constitutional rights which was due process, as well as cruel and unusual punishment, and

Case 2:09-cv-02971-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

ineffective assistance of counsel; as well as discrimination.” However, he mentions these legal

terms nowhere else in the complaint, and the entirety of his complaint alleges failures which

might amount to malpractice only, but do not implicate any federal violations. 

Simple reference to federal law does not create subject-matter jurisdiction. Avitts

v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690, 694 (5th Cir.1995). Subject-matter jurisdiction is created only

by pleading a cause of action within the court’s original jurisdiction. Id. None of these matters

states a federal claim. It is plaintiff’s obligation to state the basis of the court’s jurisdiction in the

complaint, and plaintiff has not done so. 

Furthermore, although plaintiff seeks $2.5 million in damages, he and the

defendant are not diverse. Both parties are residents of California.

Finally, The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as

follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

To the extent that plaintiff seeks to sue his defense counsel, a private party, for

money damages, plaintiff is informed that “private parties are not generally acting under color of

state law....” Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9 Cir. 1991). Moreover, the th

Supreme Court has determined that a public defender does not act on behalf of the state when

performing his role as counsel for a criminal defendant. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,

325, 102 S. Ct. 445, 453 (“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”); see also,

Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9 Cir. 2003) (en banc) (public defender is not a th

state actor subject to suit under § 1983 because his function is to represent client’s interests, not

those of state or county). It does not matter whether criminal defense counsel has been retained

Case 2:09-cv-02971-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 04/05/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

or appointed; in either case, such an attorney “does not act ‘under color of state law.’” Szijarto v.

Legeman, 466 F.2d 864 (9 Cir. 1972). th

“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to

amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a

complaint lacks merit entirely.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). See also,

Smith v. Pacific Properties and Development Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2004), citing

Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497(9th Cir.1995) (“a district court should grant leave to

amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading

could not be cured by the allegation of other facts.”) 

For the aforementioned reasons, amendment would not cure the defects in the

complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 04/05/10

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Johnson2971.fr.wpd

Case 2:09-cv-02971-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 04/05/10 Page 5 of 5