Coffer v. Mannix

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screens Plaintiff Jonathan Christopher Coffer’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against his former criminal defense attorney, Jennifer Mannix. The court dismisses the complaint with leave to amend because it does not allege sufficient facts showing that Mannix acted under color of state law. Plaintiff is ordered to file a first amended complaint within 30 days of service.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not establish that Defendant acted under color of state law insofar as she may have been acting as appointed defense counsel. A public defender acting in the role of advocate generally is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983, although a public defender may act under color of state law when performing administrative or investigative functions.
2. The complaint did not establish state action insofar as Defendant was private counsel. A private attorney is not generally a state actor unless the plaintiff alleges sufficient state involvement or a conspiracy with state officials to deprive constitutional rights.
3. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because the identified pleading deficiencies might be cured by alleging additional facts showing that Defendant acted under color of state law and caused a constitutional deprivation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by alleging that Defendant, acting as appointed or retained criminal defense counsel, acted under color of state law.
2. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded a constitutional deprivation and the defendant’s involvement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the applicable prisoner-screening statute.

Disposition

other