Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00660/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00660-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Colabine
Plaintiff
Hilary Davisson
Defendant
Sacramento County Office of the Public Defender
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 

THOMAS COLABINE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICE OF 

THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. No. 2:15-cv-0660 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint and motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and Local Rule 305(a). See 

ECF No. 4. 

 The only named defendant in this action is Hilary Davisson, the Sacramento County 

Public Defender who represented plaintiff in a criminal matter before the Sacramento County 

Superior Court, in Case No. 12F06176. Review of the website operated by the California courts1

 

1

 This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts. See 

United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631 

F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts 

that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned). 

Case 2:15-cv-00660-AC Document 5 Filed 04/28/15 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 

27 

28 

2

indicates that this matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and a 

decision confirming plaintiff’s conviction was issued by that court on March 23, 2015, in Case 

No. C074144. Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action on the same day, alleging that Ms. 

Davisson provided ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Plaintiff seeks another jury trial and 

damages. 

 In order to state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant 

was acting under color of state law at the time of the challenged conduct; and (2) defendant’s 

conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or other 

laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 27, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds, 

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). 

 It is well established that public defenders do not act under color of state law for purposes 

of Section 1983 when representing a criminal defendant. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 

325 (1981). This is because “[t]he decisions made by the public defender in the course of 

representing [her] client were framed in accordance with professional canons of ethics, rather 

than dictated by any rule of conduct imposed by the State.” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 

1009 (1982) (citing Polk, 454 U.S. at 318). For this reason, plaintiff is unable to state a 

cognizable civil rights claim against his public defender, thus requiring dismissal of this action. 

 Plaintiff is informed, however, that after he has exhausted his claims in the California 

Supreme Court,2

 he may seek to pursue a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner to challenge his conviction 

and/or sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, a habeas claim 

must first be exhausted in the state’s highest court before it may be raised in federal court. See 

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot; and 

 

2

 Review of the California courts’ website indicates that plaintiff has not yet pursued in the 

California Supreme Court the Court of Appeal’s March 25, 2015 decision in Case No. C074144. 

Case 2:15-cv-00660-AC Document 5 Filed 04/28/15 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 

27 

28 

3

 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

DATED: April 27, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00660-AC Document 5 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 3