KENNETH FULLER V. KAREN THOMPSON, ET AL, No. 23-15146 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 18 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KENNETH ADRIAN FULLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAREN THOMPSON; CORREA, Dr.; KATHLEEN POZZY; LYNN STARKSLATER; DOTY, Dr.; CHRISTINE BRADY; ROBERT LA FORGE, Judge; KARLENE NAVERRO, Judge, MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-15146 D.C. No. 4:22-cv-03802-YGR MEMORANDUM * Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 10, 2023** Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Kenneth Adrian Fuller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his state criminal 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). ** proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Fuller’s action because Fuller failed to allege facts sufficient to show a conspiracy between the public defenders, courtappointed psychologists, and state court judges. See Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of a § 1983 conspiracy claim); Simmons v. Sacramento County Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “conclusory allegations” are insufficient to state a conspiracy claim under § 1983); see also Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.”). Fuller’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 23-15146

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.