Bhandary v. Ghatak

Background

Self-represented Plaintiff Samita Bhandary filed this action and an application to proceed without paying filing fees. Her original complaint alleged that her former spouse, Agradoot Ghatak, concealed evidence, committed perjury, and fraudulently claimed rights in her property during state-court proceedings. She alleged that Ghatak’s lawyer, Vindiola, misrepresented facts, obstructed court review, and controlled property proceeds. She alleged that her own lawyer, Walsh, failed to protect her rights, colluded with opposing counsel, and blocked her access to court.

Bhandary asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). The court previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed her to amend. Her amended complaint asserted the same claims and added Madan Ahuwalia, the Milpitas Police Department, and the Santa Clara County District Attorney as defendants.

Section 1983 Claim

The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires screening of complaints filed by people proceeding without paying filing fees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal legal right and action by a person acting under color of state law, meaning through authority derived from state government.

The court held that Bhandary failed to state a § 1983 claim against Ghatak, Vindiola, Walsh, and Ahuwalia because the complaint did not show that they acted under color of state law. Ghatak was Bhandary’s former spouse and a party to the state-court proceedings. Vindiola and Walsh were private lawyers. Ahuwalia was a lawyer appointed as minor’s counsel, but the court explained that a court-appointed lawyer also does not act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes.

The court also considered whether these private defendants could be liable for conspiring with state actors. It held that Bhandary had not plausibly alleged an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights. The allegations that the defendants acted “in concert” and “conspired with state actors” were conclusory and insufficient.

The court separately rejected Bhandary’s § 1983 claims against the Milpitas Police Department and the Santa Clara County District Attorney. It held that allegations of inadequate or cursory investigation did not establish a civil-rights violation. It also held that a prosecutor has absolute immunity for the decision not to prosecute. Finally, the court found that Bhandary’s conclusory allegations of a practice of prematurely closing reports and refusing to investigate were insufficient to establish municipal liability against either government defendant.

Section 1985(3) Claim

Bhandary also asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), which addresses conspiracies to deny equal protection of the laws. The court held that she failed to plausibly allege a conspiracy for the reasons discussed above. She also did not allege racial or other class-based discriminatory animus, an additional required element of the claim. Because she did not state a plausible § 1983 claim either, the court dismissed the § 1985(3) claim as well.

Disposition

The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim. It determined that further amendment would be futile because Bhandary had not corrected the deficiencies after previously receiving leave to amend, and because the claims had legal deficiencies that could not be cured by amendment. The court DISMISSED the complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. The opinion also states that the dismissal was with prejudice.

Judge and metadata note

The supplied case information identifies Nathanael Cousins as the judge, but the opinion’s signature identifies Eumi K. Lee, United States District Judge. This summary uses the judge named in the opinion’s signature.