Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090114_0000630.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 09:09:58
Document Index: 240998081

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

| McNeely v. Jones
DOCK MCNEELY, PLAINTIFF,v.MIKE JONES, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The complaint states a colorable claim for relief against defendants County of Sacramento; Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness; Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputies: Sergeant Mike Jones, Lieutenant (Lt.) Douglas, Lt. Brezoe; Sacramento County Deputy District Attorney Nancy Ramirez; County of Placer; Placer County Deputy District Attorney David Brody; California Deputy Attorney General Craig Meyers; Carlos Sanchez, Manager of the California Attorney General Records Review Unit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
However, as to the California Justice Department Record Review Unit, the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)( per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of California has not consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims against the California Justice Department are frivolous and must be dismissed.
As to defendant Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Laurie M. Earl, the Supreme Court has held that judges acting within the course and scope of their judicial duties are absolutely immune from liability for damages under § 1983. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). A judge is "subject to liability only when he has acted in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.'" Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-7 (1978), quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351 (1872). A judge's jurisdiction is quite broad. The two-part test of Stump v. Sparkman determines its scope:
To the extent that plaintiff's intends to implicate Judge Earl, plaintiff appears to seek to fault this putative defendant for judicial actions which plaintiff deems wrongful, and conduct in a judicial capacity would render this individual absolutely immune from suit. Both defendants California Justice Department Record Review Unit and Judge Earl will be dismissed with prejudice.
As to Attorney Clark Head, apparently plaintiff's court-appointed counsel, the gravamen of his claim against this defendant is that counsel failed to represent him appropriately and/or failed to follow plaintiff's recommended legal strategy. Complaint, p. 17. The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:
The Supreme Court has determined that a public defender does not act on behalf of the state when performing his role as counsel for a criminal defendant. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 453 ("public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding"); see also, Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (public defender is not a state actor subject to suit under § 1983 because his function is to represent client's interests, not those of state or county). Defendant Head will be dismissed but plaintiff will be granted leave to amend.
3. Plaintiff's claims against defendants California Justice Department Record Review Unit, Judge Earl and Clark Head are dismissed for the reasons discussed above. As to defendants California Justice Department and its Record Review Unit, as well as Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Laurie M. Earl, these putative defendants are dismissed with prejudice. As to defendant Head, plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of service of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in defendant Head being dismissed from this action.