Unpublished Disposition, 904 F.2d 40 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 904 F.2d 40 (9th Cir. 1990)

Lawrence DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Anna C. ORTIZ, Attorney; Severin Huselid, Attorney,Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-16302.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 1990.* Decided May 29, 1990.

Before SCHROEDER, REINHARDT and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Lawrence Dawson, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he alleged that his court-appointed defense counsel violated his constitutional rights by failing to adequately represent him at his criminal trial. We review de novo, Jackson v. State of Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), and affirm.

Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989).1  Generally, the district court must afford a pro se plaintiff notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). However, if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured, the district court may dismiss the complaint without granting leave to amend. Id.

Here, the district court was correct in dismissing Dawson's complaint without allowing him leave to amend. The deficiencies in Dawson's complaint are not curable by amendment because public defenders are private individuals for purposes of section 1983. Polk v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition 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

 1

The district court dismissed Dawson's complaint sua sponte before service of process. We interpret this dismissal as a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Jackson, 885 F.2d at 640