Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01562/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01562-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Diane B. Link
Defendant
John P. Luskin
Defendant
Douglas E. Shaniuk
Plaintiff
Teresa T. Sullivan
Defendant

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

DOUBLAS E. SHANIUK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DIANE B. LINK, Los Angeles Public

Defender; JOHN P. LUSKIN, 

Ohio State Appointed Counsel, and

TERESA T. SULLIVAN, 

Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney. 

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-1562-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #4)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF

THE COURT TO CLOSE THIS ACTION

ORDER FINDING PENDING MOTIONS

DENIED AS MOOT (Doc. #10)

Plaintiff Douglas E. Shaniuk (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On November 13, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a

claim. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to

Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty

days. While Plaintiff asked for more time to file objections, no objections were filed.

Case 1:06-cv-01562-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis. In this action, Plaintiff is attempting to sue two criminal defense attorneys for civil

right violations along with the Deputy District Attorney that apparently prosecuted Plaintiff. 

State prosecutors are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of

Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9 Cir. 2004). While criminal defense attorneys are not immune, th

a civil rights action is not available against them because public defenders are private individuals

for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and therefore do not act under color of state law. Polk County

v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th

Cir. 2003). To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to sue his criminal defense attorneys for legal

malpractice, this is a state-law claim for which “there exists no independent basis of federal

jurisdiction." See Aragon v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 1447, 1457-58 (9 Cir.1985). th

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 13, 2006, are ADOPTED;

2. The complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action; All pending motions

are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01562-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 2