1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANGEE BURRELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THOMAS W. MCDONNELL, MIKE
MAACKS, and the STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 06-7803 JSW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
(Docket No. 3)
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se
civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a criminal defense attorney who
he retained to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and against whom he filed a
complaint with the state bar. He has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
which is now GRANTED in a separate order filed simultaneously (docket no. 3).
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which
prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify
any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se
pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
Case 3:06-cv-07803-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 4
Burrell v. McDonnell et al
Doc. 4
Dockets.Justia.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
elements: (1) that a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a
person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Legal Claim
In this case, Plainti