Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01158/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01158-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL HARPER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1158 LKK KJM P

vs.

ROBERT WILCOX, 

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule

72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The in forma pauperis statute permits federal district courts to

authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal . . . without prepayment of fees or security

therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that

includes a statement of all assets such prisoner

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state

the nature of the action . . . and affiant’s belief that

the person is entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

Case 2:07-cv-01158-LKK -KJM Document 5 Filed 11/06/07 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

2

A court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if it appears from the face of

the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113 (9th

Cir. 1998). In determining whether an action is frivolous, the court may “pierce the veil of the

complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly

baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Wilcox, who was his private investigator in his

criminal case, neglected to give him the form for filing an appeal, even though the judge had

given the form to Wilcox. Because Wilcox never gave plaintiff the form, plaintiff did not appeal

his sentence. He asks for damages in the amount of the restitution assessed against him, an

amount he would have appealed.

Section 1983 provides in relevant part: 

Every person who, under the color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... 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 proceedings for redress ... 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

To state a claim under § 1983 , a plaintiff must plead that the defendant acted

under color of state law to deprive him of a federally protected right. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S.

635, 640 (1980). A defendant has acted under color of state law when he or she has "exercised

power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed

with authority of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (internal quotation omitted). 

 Generally, private parties do not act under color of state law. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702,

707-708 (9th Cir.1991). Defendant was acting as plaintiff’s investigator, which is “essentially a

private function . . . for which state office and authority are not needed.” Polk County v.

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 319 (1981). Accordingly, because the single named defendant is not a

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01158-LKK -KJM Document 5 Filed 11/06/07 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

3

state actor for purposes of § 1983 liability, plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim and cannot

be cured by amendment. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis be denied and the action dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The 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: November 6, 2007. 

2

harp1158.56

Case 2:07-cv-01158-LKK -KJM Document 5 Filed 11/06/07 Page 3 of 3