Tingle v. Defilippis
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-02543
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Tingle v. DeFilippis, Judge Gilliam dismissed with prejudice a prisoner’s civil-rights suit because appointed counsel was not a state actor.
Aaron Kristopher Tingle’s lawsuit against his court-appointed attorney, Steve DeFilippis, was dismissed with prejudice. The ruling also directed entry of judgment for DeFilippis and closure of the case.
What happened
In Tingle v. DeFilippis, Aaron Kristopher Tingle, a prisoner, sued his court-appointed attorney under a federal civil-rights law, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. He alleged that Steve DeFilippis failed to call witnesses and experts, withdrew motions, did not adequately communicate with him, and mishandled his criminal proceeding and resentencing.
The court screened the complaint under a law requiring review of prisoner lawsuits. It ruled that court-appointed attorneys do not act on behalf of the state when representing clients, so they generally cannot be sued under that civil-rights law. The court also noted that the claim might be barred because success could invalidate Tingle’s conviction or sentence.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the action with prejudice because it failed to state a claim and amendment would be futile. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for DeFilippis, terminate pending motions as moot, and close the case.
The detailed version
- Tingle v. Defilippis · No. 4:24-cv-02543
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 18, 2024
Background
Aaron Kristopher Tingle, a prisoner housed at Santa Rita Jail, filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his court-appointed attorney, Steve DeFilippis. Tingle alleged that DeFilippis violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by providing ineffective assistance during the criminal proceeding that resulted in Tingle’s conviction and during resentencing.
The alleged conduct included failing to call witnesses and experts Tingle had identified, telling the court that the prosecutor was expected to call certain witnesses, allegedly lying about knowing of a video, having limited contact with Tingle, refusing to answer questions or confer with him, withdrawing motions, and refusing to present a case as instructed. Tingle alleged that the representation amounted to effective abandonment and resulted in his confinement.
Screening and legal standard
Because Tingle was a prisoner seeking relief, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under color of state law. The court applied the rule that a private attorney or public defender does not act under color of state law when representing a client, even when the attorney is court-appointed.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action because DeFilippis was not a state actor within the meaning of § 1983. It dismissed the action with prejudice because amendment would be futile. The court also stated that the claim might be barred under the Heck doctrine because success could necessarily imply that Tingle’s conviction or sentence was invalid, although the stated basis for dismissal was that DeFilippis was not a state actor.
The court directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of DeFilippis and against Tingle, terminate all pending motions as moot, and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.