Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04980/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04980-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Limbird Davis
Plaintiff
V. Roy Lefcourt
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LIMBIRD DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. ROY LEFCOURT,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04980-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended 

complaint. 

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

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.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

Case 3:16-cv-04980-JD Document 10 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

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

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that his defense attorney did not properly handling his criminal case. 

Plaintiff seeks money damages. Defendants in state court prosecutions cannot generally sue their 

lawyers under Section 1983 for mistakes in their representation. A public defender does not act 

under color of state law, an essential element of an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when 

performing a lawyer’s traditional functions, such as entering pleas, making motions, objecting at 

trial, cross-examining witnesses, and making closing arguments. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 

U.S. 312, 318–19 (1981). A private attorney representing a defendant or appellant also is not a 

state actor. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir.

2003).

Plaintiff’s allegations against his attorney fall within the scope of work that Polk County

has determined is not actionable under Section 1983. For this reason, the claim may not proceed. 

Nor can plaintiff present a state cause of action for malpractice under Section 1983. See Ove v. 

Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2001) (“To the extent that the violation of a state law amounts 

to the deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal 

Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To 

the extent that this may have occurred as part of a federal criminal trial, plaintiff is still not entitled 

Case 3:16-cv-04980-JD Document 10 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to relief. Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (attorney not a federal actor for 

purposes of Bivens action). Because plaintiff has already been provided leave to amend and 

because providing further amendments would be futile, this case is dismissed without leave to 

amend.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

2. The Clerk shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2017

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04980-JD Document 10 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LIMBIRD DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. ROY LEFCOURT,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04980-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 17, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

John Limbird Davis

#16664426

850 Bryant Street

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Dated: January 17, 2017

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:16-cv-04980-JD Document 10 Filed 01/17/17 Page 4 of 4