1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN WILLIAMS, No. 2:24-cv-01791-DC-SCR (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND REOCMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 SACRAMENTO PUBLIC DEFENDER’S THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO OFFICE, et al., AMEND 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 11) 16

17 18 Plaintiff Brian Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 19 this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 30, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that the complaint be dismissed because Plaintiff brings claims against the public 23 defenders who previously represented Plaintiff in criminal proceedings, but public defenders are 24 not state actors within the meaning of § 1983, and thus, Plaintiff cannot bring a § 1983 claim 25 against them. (Doc. No. 11 at 3.) For this reason, the magistrate judge also recommends the 26 complaint be dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. (Id.) 27 Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 28 any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. (Id. 1 | at 4.) Plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations on January 6, 2025. 2 || (Doc. No. 17.) 3 In his objections, Plaintiff does not meaningfully address the magistrate judge’s findings 4 | and recommendations. Plaintiff cites to a number of cases; however, none refute the critical point 5 | that when a public defender performs traditional legal functions as counsel in a criminal 6 || proceeding, they do not act “under the color of state law” for purposes § 1983. See Rivera v. Cnty. 7 | of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Polk Cnty. v. Dodson,

, 8 | 312 (1981)). For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983. 9 | Further, Plaintiff does not proffer any allegations that he would include in an amended complaint 10 | to address the deficiencies identified in the findings and recommendations. Thus, the undersigned 11 | agrees that granting Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint would be futile. 12 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 13 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiffs 14 | objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 15 | record and by proper analysis. 16 Accordingly: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 30, 2024 (Doc. No. 11) are 18 ADOPTED in full; 19 2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without leave to amend due to Plaintiff's failure 20 to state a cognizable claim; 21 3. This action is dismissed; and 22 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ | Dated: _ February 5, 2025 RY Os Dena Coggins 26 United States District Judge 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28