Opinion
No. CV 10-0919 JH/DJS.
January 25, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to review Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff is incarcerated, appears pro se, and has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The filing fee for this civil rights complaint is $350.00. Plaintiff is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1). Based on the information in Plaintiff's filings, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and waive the initial partial payment pursuant to § 1915(b)(1). For the reasons below, the Court will dismiss the complaint.
The Court has the discretion to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte under § 1915(e)(2) "at any time if . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious; [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." The Court also may dismiss a complaint sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if "it is `patently obvious' that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting McKinney v. Oklahoma, Dep't of Human Services, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991)). A plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In reviewing Plaintiff's pro se complaint, the Court applies the same legal standards applicable to pleadings drafted by counsel but liberally construes the allegations. See Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1520-21 (10th Cir. 1992).
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a number of questions to the public defender's office for submission to the grand jury in a state criminal proceeding, but Defendant Pistone failed to present the questions. Defendant further failed to obtain a mental evaluation of the victim or present exculpatory evidence that Plaintiff had provided. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's actions violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The complaint seeks damages.
Plaintiff's allegations against his public defender attorney do not support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A § 1983 complaint must allege facts demonstrating the two elements of the statute, i.e., that a federal right was violated and the deprivation was caused by a person acting "under color of state law." See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); Houston v. Reich, 932 F.2d 883, 890 (10th Cir. 1991). In the absence of a factual basis for either element a complaint does not state a claim under § 1983. See, e.g., West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) ("To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff . . . must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law."). Because a public defender undertaking a defense does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983, see Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 909-10 (10th Cir. 1995), no relief can be granted on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant. But cf. Steele v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204, 1215 (10th Cir. 2003) (Hartz, J., concurring) ("dismissal with prejudice . . . might not preclude the plaintiff from proceeding in state court"), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215-217 (2007). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) is GRANTED, and the initial partial payment is WAIVED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff make monthly payments of twenty per cent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to his account or show cause why he has no assets and no means by which to pay the designated filing fee;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, and judgment will be entered.