Summary
This district court order grants the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and sua sponte dismisses his pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that the named public defenders and investigator did not act under color of state law, and the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because they would necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiff's uncounvinced criminal conviction. Leave to amend was denied as futile.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the public defenders and investigator acted under color of state law for purposes of a §1983 claim.
- Whether Shaw's §1983 claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey because it would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction.
- Whether Shaw is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis.
Holdings
- Defendants did not act under color of state law; therefore, no §1983 claim may proceed.
- The claim is barred; dismissal is proper because the complaint would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction, which has not been invalidated.
- Shaw is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis; the court grants the motion and orders installment payments.
Key quotations
“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim ... is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” (at 2)
“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.” (at 2)
Factual background
Shaun Reginal Shaw, a prisoner in the California Department of Corrections, alleges that his public defenders and a public defender investigator conspired to withhold surveillance footage that would have provided him an alibi, resulting in his conviction. He claims perjurious testimony and fraudulent subpoenas, and seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint without paying the filing fee, then moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the IFP motion, screened the complaint under §§1915(e) and 1915A, and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim because defendants were not state actors and the claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey.