Source: http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20131023_0001768.DAZ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 03:49:01
Document Index: 360297745

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915']

| Taylor v. Alexander
Jeffrey Alan Taylor, Plaintiff,v.Beth Anne Alexander, et al., Defendants.
On May 9, 2013, Plaintiff Jeffrey Alan Taylor, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed an unsigned pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an Order dated July 25, 2013, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and to submit a completed and signed Certificate certifying that Plaintiff's signature on the Certificate shall serve as an original signature on his Complaint.
On August 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document, which the Court docketed as a Motion (Doc. 5), requesting that the Court, among other things, issue an order to "have In Forma Pauperis form(s) tendered by the Inmate "Trust" Account personnel *Only*... and not by or interferences by I.L.S. Staff/Personnel, without any form of retaliations." On August 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed an incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 7) and a signed certificate certifying that Plaintiff's signature on the Certificate serves as an original signature on his Complaint. The Court will deny the Motion and the deficient Application to Proceed and will dismiss the Complaint and this action for failing to state a claim.
Plaintiff has used the court-approved form and submitted a trust account statement, but the "Certificate of Correctional Official as to Status of Applicant's Trust Account" section is not completed. In light of this deficiency, the Court will deny the Application to Proceed.
If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) ( en banc ). The Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice "would undermine district judges' role as impartial decisionmakers." Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend, because the defects cannot be corrected.
Plaintiff's two-count Complaint alleges violations of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He sues public defender Beth Anne Alexander and Maricopa County prosecutor Margaret (Peggy) Wu. Plaintiff seeks release from jail, dismissal of the indictment against him, expungement of his record, and compensatory and punitive damages.
In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that his former public defender, Alexander, failed to provide him with copies of statutes related to a September 4, 2012 indictment against him, urged him to plead guilty to six felony charges, failed to file any motions on his behalf, failed to adequately review the indictment against him, and conspired with the prosecutor to convict him.
In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Wu used "dissembling means" to obtain an indictment against him, is using "fall[a]cious and dissembling police and unconfirmed medical reports" to prosecute him, and is conspiring with Alexander against him.
A. Defendant Alexander
A prerequisite for any relief under § 1983 is allegations to support that a defendant acted under the color of state law. The "under color of state law" component is the equivalent of the "state action" requirement under the Constitution. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co, Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 928 (1982); Jensen v. Lane County, 222 F.3d 570, 574 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988); Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982)). "Acting under color of state law is a jurisdictional requisite for a § 1983 action.'" Gritchen v. Collier, 254 F.3d 807, 812 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting West, 487 U.S. at 46). Whether an attorney representing a criminal defendant is privately retained, a public defender, or court-appointed counsel, he or she 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 ). For this reason, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Alexander and she and Count I will be dismissed.
B. Defendant Wu
Plaintiff sues Maricopa County prosecutor Wu for acts taken in prosecuting him. A prosecutor is absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for conduct in "initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case'" insofar as that conduct is "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.'" Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 270 (1993) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)); see also Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 (1991); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 1986). That is, "[a] prosecutor is protected by absolute immunity from liability for damages under § 1983 when performing the traditional functions of an advocate.'" Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 636 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 131 (1997)). Absolute immunity extends to a prosecutor "eliciting false or defamatory testimony from witnesses" or for making false or defamatory statements during, and related to judicial proceedings. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 270 (citations omitted). "However, the actions of a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor.'" Genzler, 410 F.3d at 636 (quoting Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273). Rather, prosecutorial immunity depends on "the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.'" Id. (quoting Kalina, 522 U.S. at 127). A prosecutor is only entitled to qualified immunity, rather than absolute immunity, when she performs administrative or investigative functions. Id. Plaintiff's allegations against Wu concern her prosecution of Plaintiff. Such conduct is intimately associated with the judicial phase of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff and is entitled to absolute immunity. As discussed herein, such allegations are not a basis for liability under § 1983. For this reason, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Wu and she and Count II will be dismissed.
Because Plaintiff has failed to name a proper Defendant, his Complaint and this action will be dismissed.
In his request for relief, Plaintiff seeks release from jail, dismissal of the indictment against him, and expungement of his record. The abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prevents a federal court in most circumstances from directly interfering with ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. The Younger abstention doctrine also bars requests for declaratory and monetary relief for constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff's ongoing state criminal prosecution. Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986). In addition, the Younger abstention doctrine applies while a case works its way through the state appellate process, if a prisoner is convicted. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). Only in limited, extraordinary circumstances will the Younger doctrine not bar federal interference with ongoing (non-final) state criminal proceedings. Such circumstances include when a prisoner alleges that he is being subjected to double jeopardy. See Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992). Speedy trial claims may also be reviewed if a detainee is seeking to compel the state to bring him to trial, rather than seeking dismissal of the charges, and the detainee has exhausted all of his state court remedies. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973); see In re Justices of Superior Court Dep't of Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 18 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2000). The failure to state a claim includes a claim to which the abstention doctrine applies. See Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1224 (9th Cir. 2006); Smith v. Central Ariz. Water Conservation Dist., 418 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff does not allege that he has been charged or held in violation of the Double Jeopardy or Speedy Trial Clauses. Therefore, disruption by a federal court is not required. For the additional reason that Plaintiff fails to state a claim pursuant to the abstention doctrine, Plaintiff's claims and this action will be dismissed.
(1) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 7) is denied.
(2) Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 5) is denied.
(3) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to
.... (4) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.