Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01973/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01973-0/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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Grant973dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE GRANT, III, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUCHANAN, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-1973 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 3)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 against his public defender, Mrs. Buchanan, and the Hayward Public Defenders

Office. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff alleges

that Defendant Buchanan knew he was innocent of all charges and that he served onehundred and sixty-three days in custody for possession of a controlled substance. 

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Court concludes that

Plaintiff’s claim is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and will DISMISS the

complaint. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 3) is DENIED

as moot. 

\\\

**Original filed 5/1/06

Case 5:06-cv-01973-JF Document 4 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Grant973dis 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claim

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Buchanan knew he was innocent and advised him

to plead guilty to possession of drugs, resulting in his sentence of one-hundred and sixtythree days in custody. A public defender, however, does not act under color of state law,

an essential element of an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when performing a lawyer’s

traditional functions, such as entering pleas, making motions, objecting at trial, crossexamining witnesses, and making closing arguments. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454

U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981). Under a Polk County analysis, it is immaterial that the public

defender failed to exercise independent judgment or that he was employed by a public

agency; it is the nature and context of the function performed by the public defender that

is determinative. See Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that defendant Buchanan knew he was innocent but advised

him to plead guilty to possession of drugs. Because providing advice regarding a plea

bargain is a traditional function of a lawyer, Defendant Buchanan, in advising Plaintiff to

Case 5:06-cv-01973-JF Document 4 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Grant973dis 3

accept the plea bargain, was not acting under color of state law. 

As Defendant Buchanan was not acting under color of state law when representing

Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Buchanan is not cognizable under § 1983. 

Similarly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against the Public Defenders Office as

a Defendant in this action. 

Although the Court generally grants leave to amend after an initial screening of the

complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court concludes that here, leave would serve no

purpose as a viable civil rights claim cannot be stated against Plaintiff’s public defender

or the Public Defender’s Office. This, of course, does not mean that Plaintiff is precluded

from seeking a remedy in state court for the failure to provide representation that meets

the standard for effective representation. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Based upon this dismissal, Plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 3) is DENIED as moot. No filing fee is due. The

Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

4/27/06

Case 5:06-cv-01973-JF Document 4 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Grant973dis 4

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Jesse Grant, III

AQY-327

Santa Rita Jail

5325 Broder Blvd.

Dublin, CA 94568

Case 5:06-cv-01973-JF Document 4 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 4