Bordelon v. Singh

Background

Johnathan R. Bordelon filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Contra Costa County public defenders Mishya Singh and Ilean Baltodano. The court had granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order and reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s lawsuit seeking relief from a governmental entity or its employees.

Bordelon alleged that Singh represented him from September 2022 through August 2023 and committed legal malpractice. He alleged that Singh ignored his statements that he had severe mental illness and did not understand the proceedings, accused him of lying about his mental illness, and said that his condition was not serious enough to be assessed by a psychologist. He also alleged that Singh refused to waive time, proceeded directly to a preliminary hearing, said he understood the hearing even when he said he did not, allowed a law clerk to argue a motion to dismiss without his consent, failed to visit him from March through July 2023, and disclosed discovery from another client that contained confidential information.

Bordelon alleged that he reported his concerns to Singh’s supervisor, Baltodano, who also said there was no need to investigate his mental well-being. He sought $2 million, asked the court to overturn and dismiss his state criminal proceedings, and requested appointment of a lawyer in this case. A footnote states that it was unclear whether he also intended to name the Contra Costa County Public Defenders as a defendant or merely referred to the Martinez Public Defender’s Office to identify where Singh and Baltodano worked.

Court’s analysis

Under Section 1915A, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that self-represented pleadings must be read liberally, but Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 still requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and conduct by a person acting under color of state law. The court concluded that the complaint did not allege a federal constitutional or statutory violation. It characterized Bordelon’s allegations as legal malpractice, which the court stated is a state-law claim.

The court identified additional possible deficiencies. It stated that the claims against the defendants may fail because the Supreme Court has held that a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing traditional functions as a criminal-defense lawyer. The court also stated that the requested relief might be barred by the Younger abstention principle, under which federal courts generally should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings through injunctions or declarations absent extraordinary circumstances.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It granted Bordelon 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint had to use the caption and civil case number specified in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court explained that an amended complaint completely replaces the earlier complaint, must name all defendants the plaintiff wishes to sue, and may not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference.

The court stated that failure to file an amended complaint as required and within the stated period would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. It ordered the clerk to send Bordelon two copies of the court’s complaint form.