Torres v. Becton

Background

Mario Torres filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted the application because it appeared that Torres lacked funds to pay the filing fee. Because he was proceeding without paying the fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

Claims concerning clerks and district attorneys

Torres alleged that on October 22, 2017, he mailed a motion seeking a speedy trial under California Penal Code section 1381 to the “Office of the Clerks.” He alleged that a person he described as his “power of attorney” was told that the motion had not been filed but had instead been forwarded to the “Office of the District Attorney.” Torres also alleged that he received an order denying the motion on November 10, 2017, but that the order did not bear a court stamp.

Based on those allegations, Torres claimed violations of his First Amendment right of access to the courts, due process and equal protection, and Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court concluded that Torres had not stated a claim because his allegations showed that the motion had been considered: he received an order ruling on it. The court therefore found that he had not shown that he lacked access to the courts or that his efforts to pursue a speedy trial had been hindered.

Claims concerning attorneys and discovery

Torres alleged that Christopher Martin, whom he called his “public defender,” refused to release discovery relating to other criminal proceedings in which Martin allegedly represented him. Torres also named Contra Costa County Public Defender Robin Lipetzky and alleged a county policy of withholding discovery before and after trial. He asserted First Amendment access-to-courts and grievance-related claims, as well as due process and equal-protection claims.

The court held that claims arising from Martin’s representation of Torres could not proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute, because a public defender generally is not acting under state authority when representing a criminal defendant. The court stated that the same result applied whether Martin was a public defender or a privately retained attorney. The court also explained that, even assuming an administrative policy by a public defender could sometimes qualify as state action, Torres’s allegations about the discovery policy were bare assertions without enough factual content. The opinion specifically noted that Torres did not allege what information he sought or how his inability to obtain it affected his claims.

State-law claims and disposition

The court treated Torres’s remaining claim as arising under state law. Because the complaint listed California addresses for Torres and all defendants, the parties were not diverse in citizenship. The court therefore stated that its authority over the state-law claims was supplemental, meaning authority related to federal claims, and declined to exercise that authority while all federal claims had been dismissed. It left open the possibility of considering those state-law claims if Torres later pleaded a viable federal claim.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and ordered that any amended complaint be filed by November 21, 2019. Judge Maxine Chesney issued the order.