Robertson v. Solomon

Background

William Anthony Robertson, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that members of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office were not representing him properly in his criminal case.

Because Robertson was a prisoner seeking relief involving government entities or employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money damages from an immune defendant. The court also said that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

Claims and Analysis

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under color of state law, meaning through authority or conduct attributable to the state.

Robertson alleged that his public defenders failed to gather available evidence and did not tell the truth to the judge during hearings about replacing his lawyers. The court held that these allegations failed to state a § 1983 claim because public defenders do not act under color of state law when performing their traditional role as defense lawyers for criminal defendants. The court relied on the principle that defense lawyers serve their clients’ interests rather than act on behalf of the state, even when the government pays for their representation.

Robertson also alleged that a public defender failed to mark an envelope containing crime-scene photographs as legal mail, causing the envelope to be opened at the jail. The court stated that this conduct likely was not covered by the rule concerning public defenders’ private status, but still did not state a claim because negligent preparation of the envelope was not actionable under § 1983. The court cited the rule that the Constitution does not guarantee due care by state officials.

The complaint also named the San Francisco Office of the Public Defender, apparently on the theory that the office was responsible for its workers. The court rejected that theory because § 1983 does not impose respondeat superior liability, meaning an entity generally is not liable solely because it employs the person who allegedly caused the harm.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court did not grant leave to amend because it found that the defects in the claims could not be cured by amendment. The clerk was directed to close the file.