Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00635/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00635-2/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

27

28

1

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL MAULDIN, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DONALD ROSE, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07cv0635 AWI SMS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Document 7)

Plaintiff Paul Mauldin, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on April

25, 2007. 

On May 8, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

action be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Findings and Recommendation

was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty

(30) days. Plaintiff filed his objections on May 25, 2007.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and

proper analysis.

In the objections, Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Defendants

are immune from this action. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, state court judges and

prosecutors are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of

Case 1:07-cv-00635-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/14/07 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

 Justice Stevens, who dissented from the majority opinion, nevertheless agreed with 1

Justice Souter on this issue, thereby providing a majority of the Supreme Court. See Spencer, 523

U.S. at 992 n. 8 (Stevens, dissenting). 

2

Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9 Cir. 2004) (“Absolute immunity is generally accorded to judges th

and prosecutors functioning in their official capacities”); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075

(9 Cir.1986) (holding that judges and prosecutors are immune from liability for damages under th

section 1983 ). In addition, Plaintiff’s civil rights claims against his attorney are not available

because public defenders are private individuals for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore

they do not act under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981)

(holding that public defenders performing traditional functions of representation do not act under

color of state law for purposes of civil rights actions); Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319

F.3d 465, 468 (9 Cir. 2003). To the extent Plaintiff alleges legal malpractice claims against his

th

attorney, this is a state law claim for which “there exists no independent basis of federal

jurisdiction." See Aragon v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 1447, 1457-58 (9 Cir.1985) th

(finding no jurisdiction over state law malpractice claim action against law firm for mishandling

of labor grievance).

In addition, as explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s allegations question the

validity of Plaintiff's conviction and confinement, and Plaintiff may not seek damages under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 until he has established, through appropriate state or federal remedies, that his

conviction and confinement are in fact illegal. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997);

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). In the objections, Plaintiff states that he has

no method to challenge his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court has opined that Heck’s

requirement of favorable termination should not apply if a plaintiff is no longer “in custody” to

bring a federal habeas corpus petition. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 20-21 (1998) (Souter,

concurring). However, a review of the complaint reveals that Plaintiff can still challenge his 1

conviction and sentence. The complaint reveals that Plaintiff is currently serving the sentence

imposed as a result of the conviction at issue in this action. Not only does Plaintiff still appear

to have state remedies available, Plaintiff is “in custody” for the purposes of federal habeas

Case 1:07-cv-00635-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/14/07 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

corpus review. Plaintiff’s apparent distrust for the systems available to test the validity of his

conviction and sentence are not grounds to allow him to proceed with a civil rights actions.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated May 8, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

and

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

This terminates this action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00635-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 3