Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00596/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00596-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Deilly
Defendant
Larry Tyrone Ford
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY TYRONE FORD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0596 MCE GGH P

vs.

JOSEPH DEILLY, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma

pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

Case 2:07-cv-00596-MCE -GGH Document 7 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

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). 

The only named defendant is plaintiff’s trial counsel, Joseph Deilly. Plaintiff

alleges that defendant Deilly provided ineffective assistance of counsel. As relief, plaintiff seeks

money damages and unspecified injunctive relief.

No cognizable claim exists under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for legal malpractice. In the

absence of a bona fide conspiracy between defense counsel and state actors, defense counsel is

not a “state actor” under § 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 320-325 (1981). 

Thus, no federal claim is possible, and the allegations do not lend themselves to a conspiracy. 

Even under state law plaintiff does not have available a state claim for legal malpractice because

an element of that claim is his exoneration of the criminal charge. Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo,

25 Cal. 4th 1194, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 471 (2001). Finally, it is doubtful that even if plaintiff had

alleged a conspiracy, he would still have a valid claim in that Heck v. Hum,phrey, 512 U.S. 477,

114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994), probably would not permit a civil action for damages alleging

“ineffective assistance of counsel” because such an issue would be intertwined with whether

counsel acted unreasonably and whether counsel’s actions substantially harmed plaintiff – two

issues which would be the focus of review in an appeal or collateral review in the criminal action

Case 2:07-cv-00596-MCE -GGH Document 7 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

alleging the same.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis is granted; 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The 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).

DATED: 6/13/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ford596.dis

Case 2:07-cv-00596-MCE -GGH Document 7 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 3