Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20121130_0016245.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 07:09:53
Document Index: 703796781

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Doc. 12) FIFTEEN DAY DEADLINE
David Myers ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee*fn1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed his original complaint which commenced this action. Doc. 1. On October 29, 2012, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Doc. 9. On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint which is currently before the Court. Doc. 12.
Plaintiff is currently a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (CSH) in Coalinga, California. Doc. 1. In the complaint, Plaintiff names the following defendants: 1) State of California; 2) Lisa Green (Kern County Public Defender's Office); and 3) Defense Counsel of Kern County. Doc. 12 at 1-3. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and wants legal counsel to win his case against the state. Doc. 12 at 3.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Green was assigned to defend Plaintiff. Doc. 12 at 3. Defendant Green violated the Plaintiff's right to counsel, so Plaintiff claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. Doc. 12 at 3. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Green betrayed the business code in her conduct with Plaintiff and such conduct was unconstitutional. Doc. 12 at 3. Plaintiff asserts that he has a right to be represented and Defendant Green violated his constitutional rights by failing to hire an expert to assist Plaintiff. Doc. 12 at 3.
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A public defender representing a client in the lawyer's traditional adversarial role is not a state actor. Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)).
Although in his prior complaint, Plaintiff complains that Defendant Green was a prosecutor who was biased in making the same recommendation to continue his detainment. Doc. 1 at 3. However, in his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Green in her capacity as a public defender, gave ineffective assistance of counsel in deciding not to get Plaintiff an expert. Doc. 12 at 3. As a public defender representing a client in the lawyer's traditional adversarial role is not a state actor, Plaintiff fails to state a claim. Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)).
B. Heck Barred
Plaintiff's claim based on the alleged ineffective assistance of his defense counsel, would also amount to an attack on the validity of his underlying criminal proceedings, and as such, is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless and until he can show that conviction has already been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir.2005) (applying Heck to civil detainees); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 855-56 (9th Cir.2003)). A claim challenging the legality of a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 (1997). An action that is barred by Heck should be dismissed for failure to state a claim without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to file a new action if he succeeds in invalidating his conviction. Edwards, 520 U.S. at 649.
In this instance, Plaintiff's ineffective assistance of counsel claim against Defendant Green in her capacity as defense counsel, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal proceedings and continuing incarceration. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Were Plaintiff to succeed in showing that Defendant Green rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, an award of damages would "necessarily imply the invalidity" of his conviction or civil commitment. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d at 1139-40. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff'scComplaint must be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B).
Plaintiff may not bring suit against the state of California for money damages in federal court because it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff fails to link the State of California to any deprivation of rights and, therefore, fails to state a claim.
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." In addition, "[l]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). However, in this action, it is apparent that the deficiencies in the complaint are not capable of being cured by amendment and, therefore, leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Accordingly, after screening Plaintiff's amended complaint filed on November 29, 2012, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:
1. This action be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; and
2. The Clerk fo Court provide Plaintiff a copy of a habeas complaint form.