Bordelon v. Singh

Background

Johnathan R. Bordelon filed the action without a lawyer. His initial complaint named Mishya Singh and Ilean Baltadano as public defenders and alleged that Singh’s representation from September 2022 through August 2023 was legal malpractice. It alleged that Baltadano, Singh’s supervisor, did not address Bordelon’s concerns. Bordelon sought $2 million, dismissal of his state criminal proceedings, and appointment of a lawyer for this case.

The court previously dismissed the initial complaint because it did not allege a violation of federal constitutional or statutory law required for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The court also explained that legal malpractice is a state-law claim, that a public defender generally cannot be sued under § 1983 for actions taken as criminal defense counsel, and that the case might be barred by a rule requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The court allowed Bordelon to amend.

Amended Complaint and Jurisdiction

The amended complaint repeated the earlier allegations. It alleged that Singh’s malpractice included agreeing that Bordelon did not have a mental illness and did not need a mental-health assessment, and that the alleged malpractice forced him to accept a plea deal. It again sought $2 million and dismissal of his state criminal case. The amended complaint did not assert a § 1983 claim.

The court dismissed the action with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court lacked legal authority to decide the case. The court found no federal-question jurisdiction because Bordelon alleged only state-law legal malpractice. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because the opinion states that Bordelon and the defendants were all California citizens. The court explained that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because further amendment would be futile and Bordelon had not corrected the deficiencies after receiving specific explanations and an opportunity to amend.

Claims Concerning the Criminal Case

The court further stated that, to the extent Bordelon sought to invalidate his conviction or plea bargain, he must use a petition asking a court to review unlawful imprisonment, rather than this civil action. The clerk was directed to send him two copies of the court’s form for that petition. The court also stated that a claim for damages based on wrongful conviction or imprisonment would require a prior reversal, expungement, invalidation, or comparable federal relief concerning the conviction or sentence.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the action with prejudice. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants and against Bordelon, the clerk was directed to send the petition forms, and the case was closed.