Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04672/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04672-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Klaus
Defendant
Ramon Sapp
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON SAPP,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER 

DAVID KLAUS,

Defendant. /

No. C 13-04672 YGR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputy

Public Defender David Klaus arising out of Defendant Klaus's alleged failure to adequately defend

him on criminal charges for which he was eventually convicted. He has also filed a motion for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

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

which 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. at 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990).

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Case 4:13-cv-04672-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.13\Sapp4672.DISM(pd).frm 2

B. Legal Claim

As mentioned above, Plaintiff is suing Defendant Klaus, his public defender. However,

public defenders acting as attorneys for criminal defendants do not act under color of state law, an

essential element of an action under § 1983. Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 919-920 (1984); Polk

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-25 (1981). Because no amendment could cure this defect, this

case will be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127, 1129 (9th

Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend to

correct any deficiency in their complaints, unless no amendment could save the complaint).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, terminate all pending motions as moot, and

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2014 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:13-cv-04672-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 2