Lindsey v. Mattison

Background

James Earl Lindsey, who represented himself and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, sued Lezlie Mattison, his former public defender in Sonoma County. Lindsey alleged that Mattison knew Santa Rosa police had fabricated a search-warrant affidavit and mishandled a photo lineup. He claimed that Mattison refused to file a motion challenging the search-warrant evidence or a motion challenging the lineup, and that she later had him evaluated for competency after he challenged her performance.

Lindsey claimed that Mattison’s conduct violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. He also alleged a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and a deprivation of rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242. He sought $1 million in damages.

Screening standard

Because Lindsey was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to review his complaint before ordering the United States Marshal to serve it. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court also explained that complaints filed by people without lawyers are read liberally, but they still must contain enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Analysis

The court concluded that Lindsey did not state a claim. First, a public defender does not act under color of state law—a required element of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—when performing traditional lawyer functions such as filing motions, entering pleas, or handling trial work. Lindsey challenged only Mattison’s performance of those traditional functions.

The court noted that a public defender may be treated as acting under color of state law if the plaintiff alleges facts showing that the defender conspired with state officials. But Lindsey alleged no facts supporting such a conspiracy; he alleged only that Mattison failed to pursue challenges to the search warrant and photo lineup.

The court also discussed the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. Under that rule, a person generally cannot obtain damages under § 1983 for conduct that would make an existing conviction or sentence invalid unless the conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise invalidated. The court said it seemed unlikely that Lindsey could plead a claim avoiding that rule, but emphasized that an ineffective-assistance claim against his public defender could not be brought as a § 1983 action.

Finally, the court held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 are criminal statutes that do not create a private right of action. In other words, those statutes do not authorize an individual to bring a civil lawsuit for damages based on the alleged violations.

Disposition

The court allowed Lindsey to file an amended complaint against Mattison by August 2, 2023, if he could correct the identified deficiencies. Alternatively, he could file a notice of voluntary dismissal by that date. The court stated that if he did neither, it would reassign the case and recommend that it be dismissed. The screening order itself did not dismiss the case.