Young v. McNamara
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-03519
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Young v. McNamara, Judge Freeman dismissed Brian Young’s civil-rights complaint without prejudice because it was barred by Heck and did not state a claim under federal law.
Brian Young’s federal civil-rights complaint against his public defender was dismissed without prejudice; the separate filing-fee request was left for another order.
What happened
In Young v. McNamara, Brian Young, a state prisoner, sued his public defender under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that Romany McNamara withheld a tape statement and did not call a detective to testify, and he sought the tape, an explanation, and damages for negligence.
The court found that Young had not identified a constitutional or federal right that was violated, and that negligence alone was not enough. It also explained that a public defender generally is not treated as a state actor when performing traditional defense-lawyer functions, such as deciding whether to call a witness. The court further found that Young’s claim was an attempt to challenge his conviction and was barred because success would imply that the conviction was invalid.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as barred by Heck. Judge Beth Freeman issued the order on September 14, 2020; the court said Young’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed separately.
The detailed version
- Young v. McNamara · No. 5:20-cv-03519
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 14, 2020
Background
Brian Young, identified as a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his public defender, Romany McNamara. Young alleged that McNamara withheld a tape statement that he believed proved his innocence and refused to call detective Wendy Cross as a trial witness. He requested an affidavit explaining why the statement was withheld, production of the tape statement, and damages for negligence. The court stated that it would address Young’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.
Screening standard
Because Young sought relief from a governmental officer, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a constitutional or federal right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.
Reasons for dismissal
The court found that Young did not identify a constitutional or federal right that McNamara violated and that negligence is not actionable under § 1983. The court also held that a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing traditional functions of a defense lawyer. It treated the decision whether to call a witness during trial as such a function.
The court additionally concluded that Young appeared to be using the § 1983 action to challenge the validity of his criminal conviction. Under Heck v. Humphrey, a prisoner may not obtain damages through § 1983 for conduct that would necessarily imply that the conviction or sentence is invalid unless the conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise invalidated. The court found that a judgment for Young based on withholding evidence that would prove his innocence would necessarily imply that his conviction was invalid. It stated that Young could not show that the conviction had been invalidated because his earlier federal petition challenging the conviction had been denied on the merits and he remained imprisoned under the conviction.
Disposition
The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice as barred by Heck, 512 U.S. 477. The opinion did not state that the separate filing-fee request was granted or denied; it said only that the request would be addressed in a separate order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.