Lively v. Clanton

Background

Eric J. Lively, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. Lively sought money damages from the attorneys who represented him at his criminal trial. He alleged that his retained attorneys violated their contract by failing to provide adequate legal services.

Screening standard

Because Lively was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental actors, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual information to make a claim plausible, rather than merely speculative.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under color of state law—that is, using authority connected to state government.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that attorneys in private practice are not state actors. It therefore concluded that the attorneys’ services in connection with Lively’s criminal case did not qualify as action under color of state law. Lively consequently failed to state a § 1983 claim.

The court also found that Lively had not provided facts establishing another basis for federal jurisdiction. The opinion states that all parties resided in California and that the criminal trial occurred in California. It noted that Lively could seek relief in state court.

Disposition

The court concluded that no amendment could cure the complaint’s deficiencies. It dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim and requested that the Clerk close the case. Judge James Donato signed the order.