Paul M. Allen, Plaintiff-appellant, v. John A. Zbinden, Defendant-appellee, 48 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1995)
Annotate this CaseBefore: SCHROEDER, CANBY and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Paul M. Allen, a former Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his civil rights complaint alleging that his appointed defense counsel, John Zbinden, provided ineffective assistance during Allen's state criminal trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,1 and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Allen's claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Zbinden was not acting under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). The court properly dismissed Allen's claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 because Allen does not allege the existence of a conspiracy. See Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, it is clear that Allen cannot amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim because he challenges only Zbinden's conduct as court-appointed defense counsel. See Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992); Polk, 454 U.S. at 325.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Contrary to Zbinden's contention, Allen's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration was timely and tolled the time to appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
