Aldridge v. Moore et al, No. 1:2016cv00170 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting in Full the 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 2 and Dismissing the Matter without Prejudice, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/3/16. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
Aldridge v. Moore et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DARREN ALDRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. R. KONRAD MOORE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00170 - LJO - JLT ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING THE MATTER WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff Darren Aldridge initiated this action by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 15 1983, asserting R. Konrad Moore and Brian Foltz are liable for violations of his civil rights. (Doc. 1) 16 According to Plaintiff, Moore and Foltz “deprived Plaintiff [of] his 4th amendment right to effective 17 assistance of Council… [and] failed to take steps required to make an adequate defense.” (Id. at 3) 18 The Magistrate Judge determined Plaintiff was unable to state a claim upon which relief may 19 be granted, because the public defenders are not state actors within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 (Doc. 3 at 4, citing Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003)). Accordingly, the 21 Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and his motion 22 to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Id. at 5) 23 Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations on February 29, 2016. 24 (Doc. 4) Plaintiff argues the recommendation of dismissal “should be deemed premature” and the 25 Court should have granted him leave to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of his complaint. 26 (Id. at 2) According to Plaintiff, he “is confident he can satisfy the Court’s requirement in stating a 27 cognizable claim.” (Id. at 2-3) 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Significantly, however, Plaintiff fails to acknowledge that the defendants identified in his 2 complaint are not state actors within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As the Magistrate Judge 3 explained, the Ninth Circuit has determined that a public defender representing a client in the lawyer’s 4 traditional adversarial role is not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983. Miranda v. Clark County, 5 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454, U.S. 312 (1981)). Thus, 6 Plaintiff’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel fails as a matter of law under 42. U.S.C. §1983. 7 Instead, such a claim is properly brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, following exhaustion 8 of applicable state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law, 9 leave to amend to amend would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) 10 (dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper where it is obvious that the 11 plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts alleged). 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United 13 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 14 Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are 15 supported by the record and proper analysis. 16 Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 17 1. 18 The Findings and Recommendations dated February 9, 2016 (Doc. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 19 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED; 20 3. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 21 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action, because this order terminates the 22 23 24 25 matter in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: March 3, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill United States District Judge 26 27 28 2

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.