Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01551/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01551-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY CARSON, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

CHARLES K. STODDARD, ESQ., )

et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-1551-LJO-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(DOC. 11)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis

and pro se with an action for damages and other relief concerning

alleged civil rights violations. The matter has been referred to

the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local

Rules 72-302 and 72-304. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s

first amended complaint (FAC) filed on March 21, 2008.

I. Screening the Complaint

The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if the Court determines that an allegation of poverty is

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 1 of 8
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

untrue or that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious, 2) fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court

must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9 Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, th

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). A th

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 2 of 8
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

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id. 

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11 Cir. th

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

A. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Here, in the FAC filed on March 21, 2008, Plaintiff sues

Charles K. Stoddard and Paladin Legal Defenders, whom Plaintiff

alleges acted as his defense counsel and as such committed

various violations of the California Business and Professions

Code (performance falling below professional norms, unspecified

breaches of the duty of full and unfettered allegiance,

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 3 of 8
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

abandoning Plaintiff during trial by failing to file motions and

a writ petition, and unspecified violations of the attorneyclient privilege). (FAC at 3.) Plaintiff seeks a declaration that

counsel’s acts violated the terms of Plaintiff’s contract with

Defendants as well as compensatory and punitive damages of over

$75,000.00.

Inconsistently, Plaintiff states that as additional relief,

the Court “will grant a Motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

41(a)(1)(i). As soon as possible.” (Id.) This appears to be a

reference to an involuntary dismissal at Plaintiff’s request,

which is inconsistent with the filing of a first amended

complaint. However, the document in which this reference is made

is a complaint. 

Accordingly, the Court will proceed on the assumption that

Plaintiff does not seek an immediate voluntary dismissal, and the

Court will proceed to screen the complaint.

B. Civil Rights Claim

The complaint refers to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is thus likely

that Plaintiff is attempting to state a claim under the Civil

Rights Act, which provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law]...

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the

United States... to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution... shall be liable to the party injured in

an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper

proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim pursuant to § 1983, a

plaintiff must plead that defendants acted under color of state

law at the time the act complained of was committed and that the

defendants deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 4 of 8
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

5

immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. th

1986).

Here, Plaintiff appears to allege that the Defendants are

attorneys, a law firm, and/or staff members thereof. It further

appears that Plaintiff contracted for the Defendant’s services.

Thus, it appears that the Defendants were acting privately. No

facts are alleged that warrant a conclusion that Defendants were

acting under color of state law. Generally, private parties are

not acting under color of state law. See Price v. Hawaii, 939

F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). However, “[a]ction taken by

private individuals may be ‘under color of state law’ where there

is ‘significant’ state involvement in the action.” Howerton v.

Gabica, 708 F.2d 380, 382 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Court notes that even if Defendant had been acting as

Plaintiff’s public defender, it is established that a public

defender does not act under color of state law when performing a

lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a

criminal proceeding. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317,

325 (1981); Rivera v. Green, 775 F.2d 1381, 1384 (9 Cir. 1985). th

Accordingly, the complaint does not comply with Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8 in that it does not state a civil rights claim. It does not

allege that any defendant acted under color of state law or that

some of the Defendants’ actions deprived Plaintiff of any federal

right.

C. State Contract or Tort Claim

Plaintiff also appears to allege that an agreement between

Defendant Stoddard and him concerning legal representation was

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 5 of 8
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

made and was breached by Defendant Stoddard, who failed to

perform by failing to provide legal services for which Plaintiff

had contracted. It is also possible that Plaintiff is seeking

recovery in tort for allegedly substandard legal practice on the

part of Defendant Stoddard. 

It is Plaintiff’s burden to allege a short and plain

statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction

depends unless the Court already has jurisdiction and the claim

needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(1); McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298

U.S. 178, 189 (1936). Local Rule 8-204 provides:

When an affirmative allegation of jurisdiction is

required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), it

(i) shall appear as the first allegation of any

complaint, petition, counterclaim, cross-claim or

third party claim; (ii) shall be styled “Jurisdiction,”

(iii) shall state the claimed statutory or other

basis of federal jurisdiction, and (iv) shall state

the facts supporting such jurisdictional claim.

Here, Plaintiff fails to state any basis for subject matter

jurisdiction in this Court. Plaintiff does not appear to be

asserting any right arising under federal statute, treaty, or the

Constitution that would confer jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331.

Further, Plaintiff, who is presently in custody at Avenal

State Prison in California, does not include any allegations

regarding the citizenship of Defendant or of Plaintiff; it

appears that the legal services in question and the proceedings

to which it related occurred in California, and thus there is no

basis for an inference of diversity of citizenship of the parties

or any jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 6 of 8
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

for subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship

and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000.00.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a basis for

jurisdiction in this Court.

Plaintiff filed an original complaint asserting essentially

the same facts and claim or claims. In its order dismissing

Plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to file an amended

complaint, the Court informed Plaintiff of the defects in the

pleading and of the law concerning his duty to state a basis for

subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. Plaintiff has now

filed an amended complaint, but Plaintiff has not cured the

defects in the original complaint.

The Court finds that a further opportunity to amend would be

futile because there is no basis for concluding that Plaintiff

could state a basis for jurisdiction in this Court.

III. Recommendation

Therefore, it IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s first amended

complaint BE DISMISSED without leave to amend.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 8 of 8