Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120522_0006893.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 06:10:39
Document Index: 40433569

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| Adam Lee Burke v. Amy Babbits
Adam Lee Burke v. Amy Babbits
ADAM LEE BURKE, PLAINTIFF,v.AMY BABBITS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner*fn1 proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302.
Plaintiff names as defendants public defender Amy Babbits and the Shasta County Public Defender's Office. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were professionally negligent and committed legal malpractice. (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated plaintiff's right to a speedy trial and fair bail, and claims other defects in defendants' representation of plaintiff in his underlying criminal action.
To state a cognizable claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a violation of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States; and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 28 (1988); Ketchum v. County of Alameda, 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, plaintiff's allegations consist of general, legal malpractice claims against his public defender in a criminal matter. However, defense attorneys (including public defenders or appointed counsel) do not act under color of state law for the purposes of § 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that attorneys are generally private, not state, actors). Plaintiff's complaint does not allege any facts suggesting that his attorney acted in a manner that went beyond the traditional functions of a lawyer. Polk, 454 U.S. at 325. Accordingly, plaintiff's allegations of general, legal malpractice fail to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 and must be dismissed.*fn2 See Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that plaintiff's legal malpractice claims do not come within the jurisdiction of federal courts). Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state cognizable claims against defendants. Because amendment would be futile, the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend.
1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperisis granted; and
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice.