Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00019/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00019-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Alonzo Chatman
Plaintiff
Nancy Dillion
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LARRY ALONZO CHATMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NANCY DILLION, Solano County Public 

Defender., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-00019 TLN AC PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, alleges a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). ECF Nos. 2. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

Case 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 01/16/20 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 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2). 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

“frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where 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). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 

theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 

constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 

of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 

680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 

to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 

Case 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 01/16/20 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 

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “‘[T]he pleading must contain 

something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 

cognizable right of action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 

Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as 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) (citations omitted). 

III. Complaint 

The complaint names Nancy Dillion, the Solano County Public Defender, as the only 

defendant. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that he was convicted on September 5, 2005 for first 

degree pre-meditated murder/mayhem/great bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, and 

another weapon related charge. Id. at 3. Plaintiff states that in 2004 the District Court dismissed 

a petition for habeas corpus and in 2014 the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. Id. In 2017 

the District Court granted an “IAC claim.” Id. In 2018, the Eastern District Court vacated 

plaintiff’s convictions for defendant Dillion’s failure to investigate. Id. Plaintiff alleges he 

suffered mental anguish, mental stress, health deterioration, and loss of liberty and freedom. Id. 

Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of punitive damages, in the amount of $5,000,000.00. Id. at 6. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by 

the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) 

(citations omitted). “[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a 

Case 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 01/16/20 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 

lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” Polk County v. 

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). 

In this case, though plaintiff does not specifically state he is bringing a case under § 1983 

(or any other federal or state law), plaintiff’s sole allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel 

can only be construed as a claim for a violation of constitutional rights under § 1983. Plaintiff’s 

allegations against public defender Dillion are related exclusively to his claim that she was 

deficient in carrying out her duties as counsel and/or managing the public defender representing 

him. Because plaintiff’s allegations are about Dillion’s actions in representing him as a public 

defender, Dillion was not acting under color of state law. This means that plaintiff cannot bring a 

claim against her under § 1983. 

Any potential claims for legal malpractice do not come within the jurisdiction of the 

federal courts. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff is free to sue 

his former lawyer in state court, but without a viable federal claim there is no basis for this court’s 

jurisdiction. 

For these reasons, the claims against defendant Dillion, the only defendant in this case, 

should be dismissed without leave to amend. 

V. No Leave to Amend 

Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 

could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se 

litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, 

unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment.” (citing Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987))). However, if, after 

careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may 

dismiss without leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1005-06. 

The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, the complaint fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted and that given the nature of the claims, amendment would be futile. 

The complaint should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. 

Case 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 01/16/20 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 

VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 

Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and you are not required to pay the 

entire filing fee immediately. It is being recommended that your claims be dismissed because 

even if they are true, the defendant you have named is not a proper defendant under § 1983. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Sacramento County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed without leave to 

amend. 

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-one days 

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

with the court. Such a 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: January 15, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 01/16/20 Page 5 of 5