JOSIAH ENGLISH, III V. HOUSE, No. 20-15969 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSIAH ENGLISH III, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-15969 Plaintiff- D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01087-GMS-JZB Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. HOUSE, First Name Unknown; et al., DefendantsAppellees, and HUGHES, First Name Unknown; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Josiah English III appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from the violation of his attorney-client privilege. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed English’s action because English failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-19, 325 (1981) (a private attorney or a public defender does not act under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires execution of policy or custom that inflicts plaintiff’s constitutional injury); Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 863 (9th Cir. 1992) (attorney-client privilege is not a constitutional right except in the criminal context under the Sixth Amendment; a plaintiff must show that he was “substantially prejudiced”). AFFIRMED. 2 20-15969

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.