Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02501/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02501-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

BRAD WASHBURN, No. CIV S-06-2501-FCD-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC

DEFENDER,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action. 

On December 7, 2006, the court issued an order dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff

leave to amend within 30 days. As of January 25, 2007, plaintiff had not filed an amended

complaint as directed. As a result, the court issued findings and recommendations that this

action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 

See Local Rule 11-110. On January 26, 2007, the Clerk of the Court discovered an error on the

docket with respect to plaintiff’s mailing address and entered a Clerk’s Notice of Docket

Correction on the docket. Specifically, plaintiff’s mailing address had not been entered correctly

when the case was initially docketed. The Clerk of the Court re-served all orders in this case to

plaintiff at his correct address.

In light of the foregoing, the court finds it appropriate to vacate the dismissal

Case 2:06-cv-02501-FCD-CMK Document 7 Filed 01/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

findings and recommendations filed on January 26, 2007, and to provide plaintiff with additional

time to file an amended complaint as directed by the December 7, 2006, order. For convenience,

the court restates the reasons for dismissal articulated in the December 7, 2006, order:

Given that plaintiff has named the Office of the Public

Defender as a defendant to this action, it appears that plaintiff is alleging

that he is facing incarceration due to ineffective assistance of counsel. It

also appears that plaintiff is being prosecuted in the state court and that

plaintiff’s allegation arises from that prosecution. It is not clear, however,

whether plaintiff has been convicted of any crime. In any event, this court

cannot hear plaintiff’s claim at this time. If plaintiff has not yet been

convicted, the court would be barred from considering the instant civil

case until plaintiff has actually been convicted. See, e.g. Younger v.

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Once plaintiff has been convicted, a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel would sound in habeas. Therefore, if

plaintiff has already been convicted, the instant action would have to be

dismissed in favor of plaintiff pursuing his rights in an exhausted habeas

corpus petition. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see

also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City

of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). See

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1987); Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 483-84 (1994); Butterfield v. Bail 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th

Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff is again warned that failure to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal of the

entire action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on January 26, 2007, are vacated;

and

2. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a first amended

complaint.

DATED: January 29, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02501-FCD-CMK Document 7 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 2