Hill v. Townsend

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE HORACE HILL, JR., Case No. C23-5878-RSL-SKV 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING 11 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JOSEPHINE C. TOWNSEND, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court on the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan (Dkt. # 12). The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, objections to the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 13), and the remaining record, orders the following: 19 (1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. However, the Court concludes 20 that plaintiff’s claims against his defense attorney, Josephine C. Townsend, warrant 21 dismissal with prejudice. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“a public 22 defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional 23 functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.”); Briley v. California, 24 564 F.2d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 1977) (privately retained attorneys do not act under color 25 of law for purposes of § 1983 liability); (2) Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Michael Frank and Kenneth Hess are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim 1 upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This dismissal shall count 2 as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties and to Judge Vaughan.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of April, 2024.

A 12 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge