Wood v. Contra Costa County

Background

Andrea Wood and "TP" asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against twelve defendants. Their claims arose from allegations that the County of Contra Costa removed Wood’s three minor children—TP, HP, and KP—from Wood’s custody, and that a state court later declined to return HP and KP to Wood and placed them in foster care.

Mary P. Carey represented Wood during part of the state child-dependency proceedings. The claims against Carey were based on allegations that Carey blocked evidence Wood provided and asked the state court to block visitation between Wood and her children. Wood proceeded without a lawyer. TP was a minor and had no counsel.

Court’s analysis

The court held that TP could not appear in federal court without a lawyer. Because TP lacked counsel, the court dismissed TP’s claims against Carey without prejudice. The court applied the same reasoning to TP’s claims against the remaining defendants and dismissed those claims as well.

The court separately held that Wood’s claims against Carey failed to state a legally cognizable claim under § 1983. Such a claim requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law, meaning the defendant exercised authority attributable to the state. The court relied on the rule that an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act under color of state law when representing a client. It therefore concluded that Wood’s allegations about Carey’s conduct during the dependency proceedings could not support a § 1983 claim against Carey.

Disposition

The court granted Carey’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, it dismissed TP’s claims against all defendants without prejudice, and it dismissed Wood’s claims against Carey for failure to state a claim. The court vacated the hearing scheduled for May 21, 2021. The opinion does not dismiss Wood’s claims against defendants other than Carey. Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order.