Bennett v. Prop. 47 Public Defenders Deaprtment

Background

David Bennett, identified by the court as a state parolee, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. He sued public defenders Lara Wallmen and Maried O’Keefe and the Sixth District Appellate Program. He alleged that the attorneys incorrectly told him he did not qualify for Proposition 47 relief, failed to pursue the issue on appeal, and caused him to remain imprisoned or on parole longer than he should have. He sought money damages for alleged malpractice, ineffective assistance of counsel, and injury connected to his conviction and sentence.

Bennett also asserted a claim involving “actual innocence.” The court noted that a prior related federal habeas proceeding had rejected his Proposition 47 sentencing claim as a matter of state sentencing law and had denied the remaining claims on the merits. The court stated that the earlier proceeding did not include an actual-innocence claim.

Screening and Claims

Because Bennett sought relief from governmental entities or employees while subject to custody-related restrictions, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that a § 1983 claim requires both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under color of state law, meaning through governmental authority.

The court dismissed Bennett’s claims against the public defenders and the appellate attorneys for failure to state a claim. It relied on the rule that an attorney performing traditional functions as counsel for a criminal defendant does not act under color of state law. Because Bennett’s allegations concerned the attorneys’ representation during his criminal appeals, the court found those allegations were not actionable under § 1983.

For the actual-innocence damages claim, the court applied the rule that a person generally cannot recover damages under § 1983 for harm that would invalidate a conviction or sentence unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court’s writ. The court stated that resentencing under Proposition 47 did not by itself invalidate the original conviction or establish actual innocence. It required Bennett to provide supporting documentation showing that the conviction had been invalidated and to name the county of conviction as the proper defendant for that claim.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court granted Bennett’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he could proceed without prepaying the filing fee, based on his showing of indigency. It also granted his motion for permission to file electronically and designated the case as an electronic-filing case.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Bennett was given 28 days from the filing date to submit an amended complaint on the court’s form. The court dismissed Lara Wallmen, Maried O’Keefe, the Sixth District Appellate Program, and the “Prop. 47 Public Defender” department from the action because Bennett had not stated a cognizable claim against them. The order stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint on time would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice.