1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CHRISTOPHER DAVON SCOTT, 10 Case No. 24-cv-09174-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 JAMES KEVIN ALLEN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 16 INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiff alleges his attorney James Kevin Allen, and the San Mateo County Private 18 Defenders Office, violated his constitutional rights by mishandling his representation. His 19

complaint containing these allegations is now before the Court for 20 review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 21 This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED because Allen cannot be held liable 22 under section 1983. Whether he is considered a private individual or a public defender, he 23 is not a state actor and therefore cannot be sued under section 1983. 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 || cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 || upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 || from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 4 || See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 5 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 6 || claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) 7 || (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “A claim has facial 8 || plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 9 || reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” /d. (quoting 10 || Twombly,

). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 11 || conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network,

, 754-55 13 || (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two S 14 || essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 3 15 || was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 2 16 || color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 17 || B. Legal Claims 18 Plaintiff alleges that Allen’s mishandling of his representation violated his 19 || constitutional rights. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) Allen is employed by the San Mateo 20 || County Private Defender Office. (/d. at 2.) If Allen is acting as a private individual, he is 21 not a state actor and therefore he cannot be sued under section 1983. See Gomez v. Toledo, 22 || 446 US. 635, 640 (1980) (a private individual does not act under color of state law, an 23 || essential element of a § 1983 action). If Allen is acting as a public defender, he also is not 24 || astate actor. Polk County v. Dodson,

(1981) (a public defender does 25 || not act under color of state law, an essential element of an action under

, 26 || when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions). Accordingly, the claims against Allen 27 || and the San Mateo County Private Defenders Office, along with this federal civil rights 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL CASE No. 24-cv-09174-RS

1 action, are DISMISSED. 2 CONCLUSION 3 This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in 4 favor of defendants, and close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: April _1_4_, 2025 _________________________ 7 RICHARD SEEBORG 8 Chief United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27