Jackson v. Barrett ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, No. 1:21-cv-00869-DAD-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 CHARLES MARTIN BARRETT, ACTION 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 2, 3) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Cornel Jackson is a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 14, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found 22 that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable § 1983 claim against defendant, his court-appointed 23 defense counsel in his pending state court criminal proceedings, because “it is well established 24 that court appointed attorneys are not acting under color of state law for § 1983 purposes but 25 rather act as an advocate for their client.” (Doc. No. 3 at 4.) In addition, to the extent plaintiff 26 seeks in this action to challenge “the adequacy of court-appointed counsel in his pending state 27 criminal proceedings,” the magistrate judge found that this court should abstain from exercising 28 jurisdiction based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), noting that “[p]laintiff has 1 the ability to raise his ineffective assistance claim in the underlying criminal prosecution and has 2 failed to allege any facts to support a conclusion that extraordinary circumstances warrant federal 3 intervention in his pending state prosecution.” (Id. at 5–6.) Accordingly, findings and 4 recommendations were issued recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without 5 leave to amend, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be 6 granted. (Id. at 6.) The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff’s application to proceed 7 in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied because plaintiff’s complaint lacks merit on its face. 8 (Id. at 7) (citing Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (“A district court 9 may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the 10 proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.”)). Those pending findings and 11 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 12 to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 8.) On July 19, 2021, plaintiff timely filed 13 objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 4.) 14 In his objections, plaintiff merely restates his argument that defendant Barrett has 15 allegedly not adequately represented plaintiff’s interests in plaintiff’s pending criminal 16 proceeding in state court. (Id.) Plaintiff does not address the analysis set forth in the pending 17 findings and recommendations or proffer allegations that he would include in an amended 18 complaint were he to be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint. 19 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 20 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 21 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 22 record and by proper analysis. 23 Accordingly, 24 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 14, 2021 (Doc. No. 3) are 25 adopted in full; 26 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 3. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim; and 2 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 3 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 7. *) pated: _July 26, 2021 Vila AL nye 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28