Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00961/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00961-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ambry
Defendant
Luis Muratalla-Lua
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

LUIS MURATALLA-LUA, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

JOHN AMBRY, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-00961-AWI-SMS 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS TO 1) PAY THE FILING

FEE OR SUBMIT A COMPLETED

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, OR 2) FILE A NOTICE OF

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF THIS

ACTION

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SEND

PLAINTIFF BLANK FORMS FOR AN

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, A CIVIL RIGHTS

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO § 1983, AND

A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.

On July 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor filed a

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Further,

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, is suing his attorney for

ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with Plaintiff’s

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 5
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

defense in a criminal case that apparently resulted in a judgment

of conviction pursuant to which Plaintiff is presently

incarcerated. Finally, although Plaintiff seeks monetary damages

in his complaint, he also states that the instant action is also

one for a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

I. Separate Action for Habeas Corpus Relief

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). Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff wishes to obtain

habeas corpus relief, Plaintiff must file a separate petition for

writ of habeas corpus. The Court will direct the clerk to send to

Plaintiff a blank form for petition for writ of habeas corpus. If

Plaintiff desires to file for habeas corpus relief, he may file

for such relief in a separate action.

II. Defects in Plaintiff’s Complaint

Further, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to recover

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.”

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 07/25/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Id. at 488. Plaintiff has not alleged that his conviction has

been invalidated, and because Plaintiff is seeking habeas corpus,

it appears that his conviction has not been invalidated. Thus,

the complaint in its present form would not appear to be legally

sufficient. See, Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585

(9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, if this complaint were screened, it

is likely that the Court would order dismissal of the complaint. 

In addition, in order to recover under § 1983, Plaintiff

must allege and prove that Defendants acted under color of state

law to deprive Plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution

or federal statute. Karim-Panahi v.Los Angeles Police Dept., 839

F.2d 621, 623 (9 Cir. 1988). Generally, private parties are not th

acting under color of state law. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d

702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). Further, 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). This is another defect in Plaintiff’s presently th

filed complaint.

Thus, Plaintiff may want voluntarily to dismiss this action.

Alternatively, Plaintiff may want to proceed with the action but

file a first amended complaint in which the defects in his

original complaint are remedied. The Court will direct the clerk

to send to Plaintiff a blank complaint form pursuant to § 1983 in

case Plaintiff desires to amend his complaint. However, the Court

will not screen the amended complaint and order service until the

filing fee is paid or Plaintiff files an application to proceed

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 07/25/07 Page 3 of 5
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

in forma pauperis that is granted. 

III. Payment of Filing Fee or Filing an Application to

 Proceed in Forma Pauperis 

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has neither filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the $350.00

filing fee for a civil action. The filing fee for all civil

actions other than habeas corpus is $350.00; the filing fee for

an application for a writ of habeas corpus is $5.00. 28 U.S.C. §

1914, as amended effective April 8, 2006. Pub. L. No. 109-171,

120 Stat. 4 (2006). If Plaintiff seeks to continue to proceed

with a section 1983 action, then Plaintiff will have to pay the

filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

If Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis and an

application to do so is filed and granted, the Court will direct

that the $350.00 filing fee be withdrawn in installments from

Plaintiff’s trust account at his custodial institution. Again,

however, as the Court has noted, it appears that Plaintiff’s

section 1983 complaint as presently stated would be subject to

dismissal when, after the filing fee is paid or in forma pauperis

status granted, the Court formally screens the complaint to

determine its legal adequacy before service on the Defendant may

be ordered.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff an application

to proceed in forma pauperis, a blank civil rights

complaint form, and a blank form for petition for writ

of habeas corpus;

2. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this civil rights action,

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 07/25/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Plaintiff may proceed on the present complaint or may

file an amended complaint, but in either case Plaintiff

must either pay the filing fee in full or file an

application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty

(30) days; 

4. If Plaintiff does not wish to pursue this action,

plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

this order; and

5. If within thirty (30) days plaintiff does not file a

notice of voluntary dismissal on the one hand, or on

the other hand pay the filing fee or file an

application to proceed in forma pauperis, then this

action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 07/25/07 Page 5 of 5