Ermilo Vasquez Paredes v. Jasmin Khoshn

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed without prejudice a pretrial detainee’s pro se complaint against his public defender. The court held that the public defender was not acting under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the complaint did not plausibly allege disability discrimination under the ADA. The court concluded that amendment would be futile.

Holdings

1. A county public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a criminal defendant. Plaintiff therefore could not state a § 1983 claim against defendant based on her alleged refusal to seek dismissal or bail reduction.
2. The complaint failed to state an ADA claim because it alleged that defendant refused to file the requested motions because of the seriousness of plaintiff's conduct, not because of his disability.
3. The claim under Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution failed because that provision concerns cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines and was irrelevant to plaintiff's allegation of legal malpractice.
4. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, but leave to amend was not warranted because it was absolutely clear that amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a county public defender acts under color of state law when performing traditional functions as counsel to a criminal defendant, such that the defendant may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the public defender refused to act because of plaintiff's disability, as required for an ADA claim.
3. Whether the complaint stated a claim under Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution based on the alleged legal malpractice and bail-related conduct.
4. Whether leave to amend should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed