Hill v. Townsend

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON HORACE HILL, JR., Case No. C23-5878-RSL-SKV

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JOSEPHINE C. TOWNSEND, et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan (Dkt. # 12). The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, objections to the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 13), and the remaining record, orders the following: (1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. However, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s claims against his defense attorney, Josephine C. Townsend, warrant dismissal with prejudice. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.”); Briley v. California, 564 F.2d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 1977) (privately retained attorneys do not act under color of law for purposes of § 1983 liability); (2) Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Michael Frank and Kenneth Hess are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This dismissal shall count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties and to Judge Vaughan.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of April, 2024.

A

Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge