Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03214/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03214-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY LEE MOORE, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC

DEFENDER, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

_ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-3214 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the attorneys appointed to represent him in

criminal proceedings in state court. He has paid the filing fee.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks 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 that 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. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim

under § 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).
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

1Exceptions may exist for the Public Defender’s performance of purely administrative

tasks or the creation of unconstitutional policies. See Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319

F.3d 465, 468-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (noting challenge to policy of administering lie

detector test and allocating minimal resources to clients who fail it, and to policy to assign

least-experienced lawyers on staff to capital cases, may be cognizable under § 1983). Such

administrative and policy-making tasks are not alleged in the instant action. 

2

Here, plaintiff claims that the Contra Costa County Public Defender, and the

deputies he assigned to represent petitioner, provided him with deficient representation in

connection with an ongoing criminal prosecution in state court. In particular, plaintiff

claims that defendants have provided deficient representation by failing to meet with him on

a sufficiently frequent basis, failing to file meritorious motions and to subpoena helpful

witnesses, and failing to adequately challenge the prosecution’s evidence and witnesses. A

public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional

functions in representing a defendant in a state court criminal prosecution; such traditional

functions include entering pleas, making motions, objecting at trial, cross-examining

witnesses, and making closing arguments. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19

(1981).1 The action or lack of action alleged herein does not constitute conduct taken

under color of state law. See id. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against his attorneys are DISMISSED for failure to

state a cognizable claim for relief. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 24, 2005

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge