Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01440/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01440-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2611 

27 

28 

FILED' 

,JUL 27 2012 

~~qpAili BY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRIAN K. TOMLINSON, 

BOP #04796-298 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MONEQUE ASCHKENOSY; JEFF 

SAGERS; LAURA DUFFY; DAVID 

LESHNER; SANJA BHENGARI; 

BERNARD SKOMAL; STEVEN STONE; 

PAUL CROUCH; JANNETTE IDLL; 

JOHN KELL Y; ALLEN STEVENS; 

JOCK BAHSHAR; PAUL SWEENEY; 

ALBERT ADELMAN, 

Defendants. 

Civil 12cv1440 WQH (MDD) 

No. 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

IMPOSING NO INITIAL PARTIAL 

FILING FEE AND GARNISHING 

$350.00 BALANCE FROM 

PRISONER TRUST ACCOUNT 

[ECF No.2]; 

(2) DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL [ECF No.3]; 

(3) DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

SEEKING MONETARY DAMAGES 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS WHO ARE 

IMMUNE AND FOR FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) 

& 1915A(b); AND 

(4) DENYING MOTION FOR 90 DAY 

EXTENSION TO SERVE PAPERS 

[ECF No.5] 

Plaintiff, a federal inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution 

located in Lompac, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. 

1 12cv1440 WQH (MDD) 

Case 3:12-cv-01440-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 07/27/12 Page 1 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 

211 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECFNo.2], along with aMotion for Appointment ofCounsel [ECFNo. 3] and 

3 II a Motion for a "90 day Extension to serve Papers to Parties in Litigation, et al." [ECF No.5]. 

4 II I.· MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 

II All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court ofthe United 

611 States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 

711 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay only if the party is 

8 II granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 

911 F.3d 1047,1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176,1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

II Prisoners granted leave to proceed IFP however, remain obligated to pay the entire fee in 

11 II installments, regardless of whether the action is ultimately dismissed for any reason. See 28 

1211 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(I) & (2). 

13 II The Court fmds that Plaintiffhas submitted a certified copy ofhis trust account statement 

1411 pursuantt028 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. ClvLR3.2. Plaintiffs trust account statement 

II shows that he has insufficient funds from which to pay an initial partial filing fee. 

1611 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No.2] and 

17 II assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)( 1). However, the Court further 

1811 orders the Warden ofthe Federal Correctional Institution to garnish the entire $350 balance of 

19 II the filing fees owed in this case, collect and forward them to the Clerk ofthe Court pursuant to 

II the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

21 II II. MOTION FOR ApPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

22 II Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil 

23 II action. The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, however, 

24 II unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty ifhe loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. 

II ofSocial Services, 452 U.S. 18,25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district 

26 II courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be 

2711 exercised only under "exceptional circumstances." Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th 

28 II Cir. 1991). "A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the 

2 12cv1440 WQH (MDD) 

Case 3:12-cv-01440-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 07/27/12 Page 2 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II 'likelihood ofsuccess on the merits and the ability ofthe plaintiffto articulate his claims pro se 

2 II in light ofthe complexity ofthe legal issues involved.' Neither ofthese issues is dispositive and 

3 II both must be viewed together before reaching a decision." Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 

411 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986». 

II The Court denies Plaintiffs request without prejudice because, for the reasons set forth 

6 II below, neither the interests ofjustice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of 

7 II counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622,626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 

8 1017. 

9 III. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) 

II The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA")'s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 also 

11 II obligate the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like 

12 II Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or 

13 II adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, 

14 II probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as practicable after docketing." 

II See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua 

16 II sponte dismiss any prisoner civil action and all other IFP complaints, or any portions thereof, 

17 II which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who 

18 II are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopezv. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126­

19 II 27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2»; Resnickv. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,446 n.l (9th Cir. 

II 2000) (§ 1915A). 

21 II Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte 

22 II dismissal ofonly frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. However, 28 

2311 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)and§ 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing anIFP or prisoner's suit 

24 II make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the Complaint be served by the 

II U.S. Marshal pursuanttoFED.R.CIV.P.4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 ("[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, 

26 II but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a 

27 II claim."); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing 

28 II § 1915A). 

3 12cvl440 WQH (MOD) 

Case 3:12-cv-01440-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 07/27/12 Page 3 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

II 

1 " "[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all 

2 /I allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the 

3 II plaintiff." Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2) 

4 II "parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b )(6)"). Here, however, even 

II presuming Plaintiffs factual allegations true, the Court finds his Complaint both fails to state 

6 \I a claim upon which relief can be granted and seeks monetary relief from defendants who are 

7 II immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b);Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27;Resnick, 213 

811 F.3d at 446, n.!. 

9 \I Plaintiff is in federal custody and seeks to hold purported federal actors liable for alleged 

II civil rights violations. Thus, while the Court notes that while Plaintiff purportedly brings this 

11 II action under § 1983 and § 1985, the Court will liberally construe some of his claims to arise 

1211 under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) because 

13 II Plaintiff claims violations of his civil rights by a federal actors. Bivens established that 

14 II "compensable injury to a constitutionally protected interest [by federal officials alleged to have 

II acted under color offederal law ] could be vindicated by a suit for damages invoking the general 

16 II federal question jurisdiction of the federal courts [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331]." Butz v. 

1711 Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 486 (1978). "Actions under § 1983 and those under Bivens are 

18 II identical save for the replacement ofa state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens." 

19 1/ Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F .2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991). 

To state a private cause of action under Bivens, Plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right 

21 II secured by the Constitution of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was 

22 II committed by a federal actor. Id.; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F .2d 621,624 

23 II (9th Cir. 1988). Bivens provides that "federal courts have the inherent authority to award 

24 II damages against federal officials to compensate plaintiffs for violations of their constitutional 

II rights." Western Center for Journalism v. Cederquist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000). 

26 II However, a Bivens action may only be brought against the responsible federal official in his or 

2711 her individual capacity. Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348,355 (9th Cir. 1988). Bivens 

28 II does not authorize a suit against the government or its agencies for monetary relief. FDIC v. 

4 12cv1440 WQH (MDD) 

Case 3:12-cv-01440-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 07/27/12 Page 4 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

311 

1 II Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994); Thomas-Lazear v. FBI, 851 F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 1988); 

211 Daly- Murphy, 837 F.2d at 355. 

Nor does Bivens provide a remedy for alleged wrongs committed by a private entity 

411 alleged to have denied Plaintiffs constitutional rights under color offederal law. Correctional 

II Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61,69 (2001) ("'[nhe purpose ofBivens is to deter the 

611 officer,' not the agency.") (quoting Meyer, 510 U.S. at 485); Malesko, 534 U.S. at 66 n.2 

7 II (holding that Meyer "forecloses the extension ofBivens to private entities. "). 

8 II A. Appointed and Retained Counsel 

9 \I Plaintiff names a number ofindividuals who appear to have acted as his defense counsel 

II during his criminal trial. It is not clear whether some of these attorneys were retained by 

11 II Plaintiff or appointed to represent him. Regardless, Plaintiff cannot seek money damages for 

12 II alleged civil rights violations as these parties are neither state nor federal actors. A person "acts 

13 II under color of state law [for purposes of § 1983] only when exercising power 'possessed by 

14 II virtue ofstate law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority 

II ofstate law.'" Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,317-18 (1981) (quoting United States v. 

1611 Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)). Attorneys appointed to represent a criminal defendant 

17 II during trial, do not generally act under color of state law because representing a client "is 

18 II essentially a private function ... for which state office and authority are not needed." Polk 

19 II County, 454 U.S. at 319; United States v. De Gross, 960 F.2d 1433, 1442 n.l2 (9th Cir. 1992). 

II Thus, when publicly appointed counsel are performing as advocates, i.e., meeting with clients, 

21 II investigating possible defenses, presenting evidence at trial and arguing to the jury, they do not 

2211 act under color ofstate law for section 1983 purposes. See Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 

23 II 53 (1992); Polk County, 454 U.S. at 320-25; Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th 

2411 Cir. 2003) (en banc) (finding that public defender was not a state actor subject to suit under 

II § 1983 because, so long as he performs a traditional role of an attorney for a client, "his 

2611 function," no matter how ineffective, is "to represent his client, not the interests ofthe state or 

27 II county."). 

28 II III 

5 12cv1440 WQH (MDD) 

Case 3:12-cv-01440-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 07/27/12 Page 5 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II Accordingly, Plaintiff s claims against his defense counsel must be dismissed for failing 

2" to state a claim upon which section 1983 relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 

3 II § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 1915A(b); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446. 

4" Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the 

II alleged ineffectiveness assistance of his trial and appellate counsel, his claim amounts to an 

6 II attack on the validity of his underlying criminal proceedings, and as such, is not cognizable 

711 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless and until he can show that conviction has already been 

811 invalidated. Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334F.3d 850, 

911 855-56 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Absent such a showing, '[e]ven a prisoner who has fully exhausted 

II available state remedies has no cause of action under § 1983...."') (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 

11 II 489), cert. denied. 124 S. Ct. 2388 (2004). Heck holds that "in order to recover damages for 

12" allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions 

13 II whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a section 1983 plaintiff must 

14 II prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive 

" order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into 

1611 question by a federal court's issuance ofa writ of habeas corpus." Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. 

17 1\ A claim challenging the legality ofa conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is 

1811 not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487; Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,643 (1997). 

19 In Heck, the Supreme Court held that: 

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the 

district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the 

21 plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity ofhis conviction or 

sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the 

22 plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already 

been invalidated. But if the district court determines that the 

23 plaintiffs action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the 

mvalidity ofany outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, 

24 the action should be allowed to proceed. 

II Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 (emphasis added). An action that is barred by Heck should be dismissed 

26 II for failure to state a claim without prejudice to Plaintiff s right to file a new action ifhe succeeds 

27" in invalidating his conviction. Edwards, 520 U.S. at 649. 

28111 II 

6 12cv1440 WQH (MDD) 

Case 3:12-cv-01440-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 07/27/12 Page 6 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II Here, Plaintiffs ineffective assistance of counsel claims against his defense counsel 

2 II "necessarily imply the invalidity" of his criminal proceedings and continuing incarceration. 

3 II Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Were Plaintiff to succeed in showing that his defense counsel rendered 

4 II ineffective assistance ofcounsel, an award ofdamages would "necessarily imply the invalidity" 

1\ ofhis conviction. Id.; see also Stricklandv. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (to succeed 

611 on ineffective assistance claim petitioner must show that counsel's performance fell below 

7 II objective standard ofreasonableness and that but for counsel's errors the result ofthe trial would 

8 II have been different); Lozada v. Deeds, 964 F.2d 956, 958-59 (9th Cir. 1992) (remedy for 

9 II ineffective assistance of counsel is a conditional writ granting petitioner's release unless state 

II retries him or allows him to pursue an appeal with the assistance ofcounsel within a reasonable 

11 II time). Thus, because Plaintiff seeks damages for an allegedly unconstitutional criminal 

12 \I proceedings in a criminal case, and because he has not alleged that his conviction has already 

13 II been invalidated, a section 1983 claim for damages has not yet accrued. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 

14 489-90. 

B. Prosecutorial Immunity 

16 II Likewise, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs claims for money damages against Defendant 

17 II Duffy. Criminal prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil damages suits premised upon acts 

18 II committed within the scope of their official duties which are "intimately associated with the 

19 II judicial phase ofthe criminal process." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also 

II Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 272-73 (1993); Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 487-93 

2111 (1991). A prosecutor is immune even when the prosecutor's malicious or dishonest action 

2211 deprived the defendant ofhis or her liberty. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 

23 1\ 1986). Thus, Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Duffy is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2411 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) for seeking monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief without leave to amend. 

26 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs entire Complaint must be dismissed sua 

27 II sponte for seeking monetary damages against immune defendants and for failing to state a claim 

2811 upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). In 

7 12cv1440 WQH (MOD) 

Case 3:12-cv-01440-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 07/27/12 Page 7 of 9
111 addition, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time to serve the 

211 Defendants with his Complaint as moot in light ofthe dismissal ofthe entire action. 

311 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

4 II Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

5 II 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment ofCounsel [ECF No.3] is DENIED without 

6 1/ prejudice. 

711 2. Plaintiffs Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No.2] is 

811 GRANTED. 

9 3. The Warden for the Federal Correctional Institution, or his designee, shall collect 

10 II from Plaintiffs prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee owed in this case by , 

11 " collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of 

12 II the preceding month's income and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the 

13 II amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL 

14 II PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARL Y IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 

1511 ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 

1611 4. The Clerk ofthe Court is directed to serve a copy ofthis Order on Warden, Federal 

17 II Correctional Institution, 3600 Guard Road, Lompac, California 93436-2705. 

18 II IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

1911 5. Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED for seeking monetary damages against 

20 II immune defendants and for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See 28 

2111 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty five (45) days 

22 II leave from the date this Order is "filed" in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures 

23 II all the deficiencies ofpleading noted above. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint must be complete 

24 II in itself without reference to the superseded pleading. See S. D.CAL. CIvLR. 15.1. Defendants 

25 II not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been 

2611 waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

27 / / / 

28 / / / 

8 12cvl440 WQH (MDD) 

Case 3:12-cv-01440-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 07/27/12 Page 8 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

II/Further, ifPlaintiffs Amended Complaint still fails to state a claim upon which relief 

2 /I may be granted, it may be dismissed without further leave to amend and may hereafter be 

3 /I counted as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See McHenryv. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 

4 /I (9th Cir. 1996). 

II 6. Plaintiffs Motion for 90 Day Extension [ECF No.5] is DENIED as moot. 

6 7. The Clerk ofthe Court is directed to mail a form civil rights Complaint to Plaintiff. 

711 

9 

811 DATED: ~~ 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

9 12cvl440 WQH (MOD) 

Case 3:12-cv-01440-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 07/27/12 Page 9 of 9