United States District Court, E.D. California
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a county jail inmate, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested
leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by
Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all
purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because
this court finds summary dismissal of this action is
appropriate, no filing fee will be imposed.
names as defendants the Solano County Superior Court,
Superior Court Judge Camp; the prosecutor; Solano County
psychologists; the Vallejo Police Department; and a lawyer by
the name of Barry K. Newman. While plaintiff's
allegations are difficult to parse, it appears that the
gravamen of plaintiff's claims pertain to the substance
of what occurred in the underlying criminal proceedings in
Solano County Superior Court. Plaintiff also complains that
his lawyer, Barry Newman, failed to file a writ of habeas
corpus on plaintiff's behalf because of plaintiff's
“incompetence.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff asks
the court to overturn his cases. (ECF No. 1 at 6.)
of the Solano County Superior Court case
dockets for the state cases cited by plaintiff
confirm that further hearings in these state criminal cases
will take place on September 18, 2017. (Solano County
Superior Court Case Nos. FCR329537; VCR229334; VCR229122,
plaintiff's claim against attorney Newman is unavailing
in federal court. Plaintiff's court-appointed attorneys
cannot be sued under § 1983. See Polk County v.
Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981) (public defenders do
not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983
when performing a lawyer's traditional functions).
Moreover, any potential claims for legal malpractice do not
come within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.
state judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their
judicial acts. Swift v. California, 384 F.3d 1184,
1188 (9th Cir. 2004). Judicial immunity may be extended to
other officials if their “judgments are functionally
comparable to those of judges - that is, because they, too,
exercise a discretionary judgment as part of their
function.” Id. (alterations and internal
quotation marks omitted). Prosecutors are likewise entitled
to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Ashelman v.
Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Where
a prosecutor acts as an advocate ‘in initiating a
prosecution and in presenting the state's case, '
absolute immunity applies.” (quoting Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)); see also Lacey
v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 912 (9th Cir. 2012)
(“Prosecutors performing their official prosecutorial
functions are entitled to absolute immunity against
if plaintiff wishes to overturn a criminal conviction, he
must file an appeal to the California Court of Appeal. Here,
plaintiff filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, which challenges the conditions of the prisoner's
confinement. By contrast, a petition for writ of habeas
corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenges
the fact or duration of a petitioner's conviction.
this court is barred from directly interfering with ongoing
criminal proceedings in state court, absent extraordinary
circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
46 (1971); Mann v. Jett 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th
Cir.1985) (“When a state criminal prosecution has begun
the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory
judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for
damages “where such an action would have a
substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal
proceedings.”). Here, plaintiff has not alleged
extraordinary circumstances. Younger, 401 U.S. at
48-50. Plaintiff may raise any constitutional claims in his
ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. Lebbos v.
Judges of the Superior Court, 883 F.2d 810, 813 (9th
Cir. 1989) (“Abstention is appropriate based on
‘interest of comity and federalism [that] counsel
federal courts to abstain from jurisdiction whenever federal
claims have been or could be presented in ongoing state
judicial proceedings that concern important state
plaintiff cannot cure his pleading defects by filing an
amended complaint, his complaint is dismissed without leave
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
action is dismissed without leave to amend;
fee is imposed pursuant to plaintiffs application to ...