Hill v. Townsend

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 29, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05878
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 HORACE HILL, JR., Case No. C23-5878-RSL-SKV 9

10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING 11 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 JOSEPHINE C. TOWNSEND, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on the report and recommendation of Magistrate 16 Judge S. Kate Vaughan (Dkt. # 12). The Court, having reviewed the Report and 17 Recommendation, objections to the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 13), and the remaining 18 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); 26 (2) Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Michael Frank and Kenneth Hess are dismissed 27 without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim 28 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 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties and to Judge Vaughan. 4

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 DATED this 29th day of April, 2024. 8

10 A 11

12 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28