Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06860/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06860-0/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

1 The other named Defendants are as follows: Anish M. Patel,

Raj M. Patel and "Mr. Patel Sr.," alleged owners of Star Inn Co.;

"Judge" Jagdish Patel; "Executive Officer" Jody Patel; Fidelity

National Title Co.; Hanmi Bank; Citibank West; Nikki's Bails

Bondsmen; and Attorney Robert Shapiro.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM HACKNEY and 

VINCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ANISH M. PATEL, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6860 CW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket nos. 4, 5)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs William Hackney and Vince Williams are prisoners of

the State of California who are incarcerated at the California

Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. They have filed a joint

pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Judge

Marilyn Patel and several other private Defendants,1 and they seek 

in forma pauperis status. 

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. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

Case 4:06-cv-06860-CW Document 7 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 7
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

2

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). 

Dismissal for failure to state a claim is warranted if the

plaintiff is unable to articulate "enough facts to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1973 (2007). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A claim that is totally incomprehensible

may be dismissed as frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in

law. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989).

DISCUSSION

I. Violation of United States Constitution or Statute

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants defrauded them of "millions

of dollars" in assets, including but not limited to: various hotel

and motel properties, luxury automobiles and one houseboat. 

However, they fail to allege any constitutional or statutory

violations, an essential element for a § 1983 claim. Therefore, the

Court finds that their claims against all named Defendants are

frivolous and without arguable basis in law.

A claim is frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis. See

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Although a complaint

is not "frivolous" within the meaning of sections 1915A and

Case 4:06-cv-06860-CW Document 7 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 7
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

3

1915(e)(2) because it fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim is a separate

basis for dismissal under sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2). See id. at

331. 

Sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2) accord judges the unusual power

to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and

dismiss as frivolous those claims whose factual contentions are

clearly baseless. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). 

To pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations means that

a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination

based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth

of the plaintiff's allegations. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. But,

this initial assessment of the plaintiff's factual allegations must

be weighted in favor of the plaintiff. See id. A frivolousness

determination cannot serve as a factfinding process for the

resolution of disputed facts. See id. A finding of factual

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the

level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not

there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. 

See id. at 32-33. But the complaint may not be dismissed simply

because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely or

improbable. See id. at 33. 

Here, even applying the liberal-interpretation standard

afforded to pro se litigants, the Court finds that Plaintiffs'

allegations are presented in a conclusory manner, with no factual

support given to substantiate the allegations, and that the claims

are legally and factually frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) and Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Although the Court

Case 4:06-cv-06860-CW Document 7 Filed 06/12/07 Page 3 of 7
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

4

generally grants leave to amend, the Court concludes that here,

leave would serve no purpose. Accordingly, the instant complaint is

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

II. Color of Law

Plaintiffs' claims also fail to satisfy the second element of a

§ 1983 claim because they allege no action taken under color of

state law. See West, 487 U.S. at 49 (A person acts under color of

state law if he "exercise[s] power possessed by virtue of state law

and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the

authority of state law.") (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). 

A. Claims Against Judge Marilyn Patel 

Judge Marilyn Patel is absolutely immune from civil liability

for acts performed in her judicial capacity. See Moore v. Brewster,

96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996). If a federal judge violates a

litigant's constitutional rights in a proceeding pending in federal

court, Congress has provided carefully structured procedures for

taking appeals and for petitioning for extraordinary writs in Title

28 of the United States Code. See id. Here, Plaintiffs have not

alleged civil liability for acts performed by Defendant Judge

Marilyn Patel in her judicial capacity. To the extent that

Plaintiffs attempt to state claims against Defendant Judge Marilyn

Patel for acts performed in her private capacity, their claims

fail. A private individual does not act under color of state law,

an essential element of a § 1983 action. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446

U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Purely private conduct, no matter how

wrongful, is not covered under § 1983. See Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l

Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 559 (9th Cir. 1974). Therefore,

Case 4:06-cv-06860-CW Document 7 Filed 06/12/07 Page 4 of 7
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

2 Plaintiffs list one of the named Defendants as "Judge"

Jagdish Patel. However, the Court cannot verify that Jagdish Patel

is a judge; therefore, it will construe Plaintiffs' claim as a

claim against a private individual.

5

Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Judge Marilyn Patel are

DISMISSED with prejudice for this reason as well.

B. Claims Against Attorney Robert Shapiro

Plaintiffs have sued an attorney in private practice. 

Attorneys in private practice are not state actors. See Simmons v.

Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir.

2003); see also Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996)

(attorneys are private actors). Services performed by a private

attorney in connection with a lawsuit do not constitute action

under color of state law. See Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337,

1345 (9th Cir. 1981); Briley v. California, 564 F.2d 849, 855-56

(9th Cir. 1977). And claims for legal malpractice do not come

within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See Franklin, 662

F.2d at 1345. Therefore, Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant

Shapiro are DISMISSED with prejudice for this reason as well.

C. Claims Against Private Citizens and Companies

Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining Defendants involve

purely private conduct by private citizens or companies;2

therefore, the Court finds that they do not meet the standards for

cognizable claims under § 1983. See Gomez, 446 U.S. at 640;

Outzts, 505 F.2d at 559. All claims against the remaining

Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice for this reason as well.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' complaint is hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs' motions to proceed in forma

Case 4:06-cv-06860-CW Document 7 Filed 06/12/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

pauperis (docket nos. 4, 5) and all other pending motions are

TERMINATED. No filing fee is due. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 6/12/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06860-CW Document 7 Filed 06/12/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM HACKNEY et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANISH M. PATEL et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-06860 CW 

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 June 12, 2007, 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.

Vince Williams F23355

CMF-G3-335

P O Box 2000

Vacaville, CA 95696-2000

William Hackney F23313

CMF-G3-335

P.O. Box 2000

Vacaville, CA 95696-2000

Dated: June 12, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-06860-CW Document 7 Filed 06/12/07 Page 7 of 7