Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03274/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03274-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, plaintiff has expressly

consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated by the

undersigned.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HENRY E. LEINEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEBRA V. CRAWFORD,

Defendant. /

No. C07-03274 HRL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

Pro se plaintiff Henry E. Leinen filed this action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Debra V. Crawford for alleged violation of his constitutional rights.1 The allegations of

the complaint suggest that plaintiff’s grievance arises from events that took place in family law

proceedings in California state court and that Crawford is or was an attorney in those

proceedings. In essence, plaintiff contends that Crawford violated his Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights because she negligently failed to give him notice of a temporary restraining

order (TRO), allegedly resulting in his inability to obtain employment as a park ranger with the

County of Monterey. Plaintiff also claims that defendant defamed him in open court.

A. Failure to Prosecute

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiff was to have effected service

of the complaint and summons by October 19, 2007. He did not do so. He appeared on

*E-FILED 12/4/2007*

Case 5:07-cv-03274-JW Document 8 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 4
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 Unserved defendants are not deemed to be “parties” to the action within the

rules requiring consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530,

532 (5th Cir. 1995) (concluding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss a prison

inmate’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without the defendants’ consent because

they had not been served and therefore were not parties); see also United States v. Real

Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that the magistrate judge had

jurisdiction to enter default judgment in an in rem forfeiture action even though the property

owner had not consented because the property owner failed to comply with applicable filing

requirements and was not a party from whom consent was required).

2

October 23, 2007 for a case management conference and explained that he had hired a

professional process server and had confidence that service would be completed promptly,

certainly within a few weeks. Accordingly, he was given an extension of time to November 20,

2007 to complete service. To date, the court’s docket indicates that defendant has not been

served.2 And, plaintiff failed to appear at the rescheduled case management conference on

December 4, 2007, submitted nothing in writing, and did not even telephone the court to explain

his absence or his intentions.

B. Failure to State a Claim for Relief

In any event, to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

and (2) the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th

Cir. 1987). Here, the allegations of the complaint indicate that defendant is a private individual. 

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

Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, services performed by a private

attorney in connection with a lawsuit do not constitute action under color of state law and,

consequently, cannot be challenged in a § 1983 lawsuit. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702,

707-08 (9th Cir. 1991) (“private parties are not generally acting under color of state law, and we

have stated that conclusionary allegations unsupported by facts, will be rejected as insufficient

to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act.”); Briley v. California, 564 F.2d 849, 855 (9th Cir.

1977) (“We have repeatedly held that a privately-retained attorney does not act under color of

state law for purposes of actions brought under the Civil Rights Act.”).

Case 5:07-cv-03274-JW Document 8 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 4
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

In this case, the complaint alleges no facts to support a claim that defendant was acting

under color of state law. Nor is it apparent to this court that the deficiency may be cured by

amendment. Thus, the complaint does not appear to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 – the only apparent basis for this court’s jurisdiction.

C. Order to Show Cause

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT no later than January 4, 2008,

plaintiff shall file a written response to this show cause order, explaining (a) why this action

should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and (b) why his complaint actually does (or

can properly be amended to) state a claim for relief. If the court does not hear from plaintiff by

then, the action will be dismissed.

Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the matter will be deemed submitted without oral

argument.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

December 4, 2007

Case 5:07-cv-03274-JW Document 8 Filed 12/04/07 Page 3 of 4
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

5:07-cv-3274 Notice mailed to:

Henry E. Leinen 

P.O. Box EE 

Pacific Grove, CA 93950-0289 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Case 5:07-cv-03274-JW Document 8 Filed 12/04/07 Page 4 of 4