Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130531_0006779.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-01 18:20:19
Document Index: 133768176

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

| Day v. Bandley
Day v. Bandley
BURTON DAY, Plaintiff,v.BRET BANDLEY, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action and has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over all matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Because plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing he is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Mental Health at the Napa State Hospital pursuant to civil commitment proceedings conducted in Yolo County. Plaintiff had been placed on conditional release, but plaintiff's release was revoked. Defendant Bandley is an employee of the Yolo County Public Defender's Office who represented plaintiff at his revocation proceedings. Defendant Olson is Bandley's supervisor. Plaintiff s claims concern Bandley's representation of plaintiff during conditional release revocation proceedings and Olson's supervision of Bandley. Plaintiff requests that the court vacate the revocation of his conditional release and seeks $1, 000, 000 in damages.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, damages may be awarded to a plaintiff suffering a violation of civil rights committed by a person acting under color of state law. However, public defenders do not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when representing criminal defendants. Polk County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Therefore, plaintiff may not obtain damages against defendants in this action.
With respect to plaintiff's request that the revocation of his conditional release by the Yolo County Superior Court be vacated, plaintiff would have to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A § 2254 petition is the exclusive remedy for a person in state custody seeking earlier or immediate release. Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Plaintiff may seek relief through a § 2254 petition in this court, but plaintiff is cautioned that any claim presented in such a petition must first be presented to and rejected by the California Supreme Court. Picard v. Connor , 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971).
Because plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in this action, his complaint will be dismissed.
1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is granted;