Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02098/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02098-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Howard Cochran
Plaintiff
Christopher Stavris
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

 In his Complaint, Plaintiff sued his former criminal defense attorney for violations

of his constitutional rights. As the Court previously stated:

A prerequisite for any relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are allegations to support

that a defendant acted under the color of state law. Whether an attorney

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Howard Cochran, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Christopher Stavris,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2098-PHX-RCB (JFM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Howard Cochran, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an Order filed

on January 23, 2012, the Court dismissed the Complaint and this action for failure to state

a claim without leave to amend because Plaintiff could not amend the Complaint to state a

claim. (Doc. 10.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 12.) 

Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the Complaint. (Doc. 13.) That motion will be

denied for three reasons. First, this action has been dismissed and judgment entered.

Second, as noted above, the Court has already concluded that his Complaint in this case

cannot be amended to state a claim.1

 Third, Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended

Case 2:11-cv-02098-RCB--JFM Document 14 Filed 02/02/12 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

representing a criminal defendant is privately retained, a public defender, or

court-appointed counsel, he does not act under color of state law. See Polk

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1981); Miranda v. Clark County,

Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

Doc. 10 at 4.

- 2 -

complaint with his motion, which is required in order to seek leave to amend. For all three

reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is

denied. (Doc. 13.)

DATED this 1st day of February, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02098-RCB--JFM Document 14 Filed 02/02/12 Page 2 of 2