eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-04

Josiah English, III v. House ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSIAH ENGLISH III,                             No. 20-15969
Plaintiff-      D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01087-GMS-JZB
Appellant,
v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
HOUSE, First Name Unknown; et al.,
Defendants-
Appellees,
and
HUGHES, First Name Unknown; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Josiah English III appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging constitutional claims arising from
the violation of his attorney-client privilege. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
Hayes,
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed English’s action because English failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler,
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a
plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief); see also Polk County v. Dodson,
    454 U.S. 312
    , 317-19, 325 (1981) (a
private attorney or a public defender does not act under color of state law within
the meaning of § 1983); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,
    436 U.S. 658
    , 694 (1978)
(municipal liability under § 1983 requires execution of policy or custom that
inflicts plaintiff’s constitutional injury); Partington v. Gedan,
    961 F.2d 852
    , 863
(9th Cir. 1992) (attorney-client privilege is not a constitutional right except in the
criminal context under the Sixth Amendment; a plaintiff must show that he was
“substantially prejudiced”).
AFFIRMED.
2                                     20-15969