Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01071/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01071-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Green
Defendant
Carlos Gilbert Law
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

CARLOS GILBERT LAW, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ANTHONY GREEN, )

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:07cv1071 LJO DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff Carlos Gilbert Law (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 26, 2007, and names Merced County Public

Defender Anthony Green as the Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant provided him with

ineffective assistance of counsel and requests monetary damages. 

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

Case 1:07-cv-01071-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 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

2

state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint

can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

B. Failure to State a Claim

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts 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, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

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

C. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that on or about June 6, 2006, Merced County Public Defender Anthony

Green violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by failing to object

to the imposition of an upper-term sentence. He requests a total of $500,000 in monetary

damages. 

Plaintiff’s claim fails for two reasons. First and most importantly, this Court does not

have federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff

must plead (1) that the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) that the defendant

deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes. Gibson v. United States,

781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). When public defenders are acting in their role as advocate,

they are not acting under color of state law for section 1983 purposes. See Georgia v.

McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 53 (1992); Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th

Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983

against Defendant Green. To the extent Plaintiff alleges legal malpractice, this is a state-law

claim for which “there exists no independent basis of federal jurisdiction.” See Aragon v.

Case 1:07-cv-01071-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 1447, 1457-58 (9th Cir.1985) (finding no jurisdiction over

state law malpractice claim action against law firm for mishandling of labor grievance).

Second, when a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a

constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a

writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d

874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must 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 question by a

federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. 

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper 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. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Based on the

facts alleged, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for section 1983 relief and it appears granting leave to

amend the complaint would be futile. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the complaint be

dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff may file a petition for writ

of habeas corpus if he so chooses. 

Case 1:07-cv-01071-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 09/14/07 Page 3 of 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

4

RECOMMENDATION

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J.

O’Neill pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after being

served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the

Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: September 13, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01071-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 09/14/07 Page 4 of 4