Aldridge v. Moore et al, No. 1:2016cv00170 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing the Matter Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/9/2016. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN ALDRIDGE, 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 14 R. KONRAD MOORE, et al., Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00170 - LJO - JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING THE MATTER WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 17 Plaintiff Darren Aldridge initiated this action by filing a complaint on February 5, 2016, 18 asserting R. Konrad Moore and Brian Foltz are liable for violations of his civil rights. (Doc. 1) 19 According to Plaintiff, Moore and Foltz “deprived Plaintiff [of] his 4th amendment right to effective 20 assistance of Council… [and] failed to take steps required to make an adequate defense.” (Id. at 3) As discussed below, because the public defenders are not state actors within the meaning of 42 21 22 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and 23 leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 24 forma pauperis be DENIED and the matter be DISMISSED without prejudice. 25 I. 26 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis As a general rule, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States 27 District Court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the Court may authorize the 28 commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees and costs of security therefor, by a person 1 1 who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, an action may proceed despite a failure to prepay the filing fee only if 3 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is granted by the Court. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 4 1178, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit has held “permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of 5 6 privilege and not a right; denial of an informa pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s right to 7 due process.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Weller v. Dickson, 314 8 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963)). In addition, the Court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to 9 proceed IFP. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Weller, 314 F.2d at 600-01. In 10 making a determination, the court “must be careful to avoid construing the statute so narrowly that a 11 litigant is presented with a Hobson’s choice between eschewing a potentially meritorious claim or 12 foregoing life’s plain necessities.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 13 Here, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP be DENIED because, as 14 discussed below, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1915(e)(2). 16 II. Screening Requirement 17 When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the complaint, and 18 shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the 19 action or appeal is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . . 20 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). A 21 claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, 22 whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 23 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). 24 III. 25 Pleading Standards General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A 26 pleading stating a claim for relief must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short 27 and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief 28 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 2 1 The Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro se pleadings are held to “less stringent 2 standards” than pleadings by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972). A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and 3 4 succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, a 5 plaintiff must identify the grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 6 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted, Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. 7 8 9 10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 11 Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 12 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further, [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ 13 14 15 16 17 18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should 19 assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal 20 conclusions in the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court has a duty to dismiss a case at any time it determines an action fails to state a claim, 21 22 “notwithstanding any filing fee that may have been paid.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915e(2). Accordingly, a court 23 “may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a 24 claim.” See Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal 25 Practice and Procedure, § 1357 at 593 (1963)). However, leave to amend a complaint may be granted 26 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 27 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 28 /// 3 1 2 IV. Discussion and Analysis Plaintiff asserts his Fourth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated by 3 Defendants. (Doc. 1 at 3) Significantly, amendments to the Constitution do not create direct causes of 4 action. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 929 (9th Cir. 2001) (“a litigant 5 complaining of a violation of a constitutional right does not have a direct cause of action under the 6 United States Constitution”). However, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “is a method for vindicating federal rights 7 elsewhere conferred.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). Thus, an individual may bring an 8 action for the deprivation of civil rights pursuant to section 1983, which states in relevant part: 9 10 11 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 12 13 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A plaintiff must allege facts from which it may be inferred (1) he was deprived of a 14 federal right, and (2) a person or entity who committed the alleged violation acted under color of state 15 law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Williams v. Gorton, 529 F.2d 668, 670 (9th Cir. 1976). 16 Here, the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint concern alleged deficiencies the representation he 17 received during a criminal trial, which Plaintiff contends resulted “in an extended incarceration.” 18 (Doc. 1 at 3) However, a public defender representing a client in the lawyer’s traditional adversarial 19 role is not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983. Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 20 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454, U.S. 312 (1981)). Consequently, his claim for 21 ineffective assistance of counsel fails under 42. U.S.C. §1983. Rather, such a claim is properly 22 brought through a direct appeal from the conviction or in a collateral attack on the judgment via a 23 petition for writ of habeas corpus. 24 25 Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to invoke supervisor liability upon the Public Defender for the County of Kern, he fails to allege any facts related to a policy implemented by the Public 26 27 28 4 1 Defender.2 “A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the 2 supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to 3 prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, supervisor liability 4 exists “if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of 5 constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional violation.” Hansen v. Black, 885 6 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989). A causal link between a supervisor and the claimed constitutional 7 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher 8 v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). 9 V. 10 Findings and Recommendations Because Defendants did not act under color of state law when representing Plaintiff, he is 11 unable to state a claim for a violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. See Polk, 454 12 U.S. at 325; Miranda, 319 F.3d at 468. Consequently, leave to amend to amend would be futile. 13 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper where it 14 is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts alleged). 15 Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED; 17 2. The matter be DISMISSED without prejudice; 18 3. The remaining motion be terminated as moot; and 19 4. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close the action. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 21 to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 22 Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days after 23 being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 24 Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 25 Recommendations.” 26 27 28 2 Moreover, there is no showing that any official policy or custom of the County of Kern is at issue based upon the facts alleged. 5 1 2 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 9, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
