Lupercio v. Attorney
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-01452
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Ramon Navarro Lupercio v. Attorney, Judge Tigar dismissed Lupercio’s civil-rights complaint with prejudice as legally insufficient and frivolous.
Ramon Navarro Lupercio’s civil-rights case was dismissed with prejudice. The order entered judgment for the defendant, denied pending motions as moot, and closed the case.
What happened
In Ramon Navarro Lupercio v. Attorney, Ramon Navarro Lupercio sued under a federal civil-rights law, claiming his federal habeas attorney provided ineffective assistance. The court reviewed the complaint before the case could proceed.
The court concluded that federal law does not provide a constitutional right to counsel during federal habeas proceedings, so the complaint did not state a valid civil-rights claim. The court also found the lawsuit frivolous because Lupercio had repeatedly filed cases challenging his conviction.
Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the complaint with prejudice, entered judgment for the defendant, denied pending motions as moot, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Lupercio v. Attorney · No. 4:23-cv-01452
- Jon Tigar
- May 25, 2023
Background
Ramon Navarro Lupercio, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint identified “ATTORNEY, et al.” as defendants and alleged that federal habeas attorney Andrew Flier violated Lupercio’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The alleged failures included not working on the postconviction proceeding, investigating, analyzing evidence, investigating DNA under California Penal Code § 1405, or filing a request for a new trial.
The court reviewed the complaint under the statute requiring preliminary screening of a prisoner’s action against a governmental entity or officer. At screening, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim under § 1983 because there is no constitutional right to counsel during federal habeas proceedings. The court also noted that allegations concerning ineffective assistance by an attorney at Lupercio’s state criminal trial were not directed at a named defendant and would challenge the validity of his conviction, which the court said must be raised through a habeas petition rather than a § 1983 action.
The court separately found the action frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), citing Lupercio’s repeated lawsuits and habeas petitions challenging his conviction and the repeated dismissals of those cases. The opinion also states that the record showed Andrew Flier had filed a federal habeas petition, opposed a motion to dismiss, and objected to proposed findings and recommendations, contrary to Lupercio’s assertion that Flier had done nothing.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim and as frivolous under § 1915(e). The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendant and against Lupercio, deny all pending motions as moot, and close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.