Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01430/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01430-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SCOTT ARCELUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALICIA BORREGO,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01430-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Michael Scott Arcelus, who is being held at Napa State Hospital, has filed a pro se civil 

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In this review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 

which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 

Case 3:16-cv-01430-JD Document 7 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Arcelus seeks monetary damages from his public defender due to her alleged poor 

performance. However, a public defender 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, cross-examining witnesses, and making 

closing arguments. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981). It matters not that the 

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

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

determinative under Polk County. Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.) 

(en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 814 (2003).

Arcelus argues that the public defender failed in her duties regarding the annual review of 

Arcelus’ confinement in a mental hospital when the confinement was extended. He argues that the 

public defender failed to file a motion to dismiss and failed to present expert witnesses. Yet, the 

public defender does not act under state law so Arcelus cannot proceed under § 1983. The 

complaint is dismissed with leave to amend and Arcelus will be provided one opportunity to 

address the deficiencies noted above.

 

Case 3:16-cv-01430-JD Document 7 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must 

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must 

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to 

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action.

2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01430-JD Document 7 Filed 05/23/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SCOTT ARCELUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALICIA BORREGO,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01430-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 23, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Michael Scott Arcelus

NAPA STATE HOSPITAL

2100 NAPA-VALLEJO HIGHWAY

NAPA, CA 94558-6293 

Dated: May 23, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:16-cv-01430-JD Document 7 Filed 05/23/16 Page 4 of 4