Christensen v. Nguyen

Decision Date19 October 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 2:20-cv-01770-APG-DJA
PartiesCOREY D. CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff, v. ROCHELLE T. NGUYEN, ET AL., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Nevada
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Corey D. Christensen's Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) filed on September 21, 2019.

I. In Forma Pauperis Application

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and the Financial Certificate submitted along with his Application indicates that his inmate account has a current account balance of $0.00, an average monthly balance of $1.75, and an average monthly deposit of $71.91, although the numbers are not completely legible. (ECF No. 1). Based on the financial information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay an initial partial filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted pursuant to § 1915(a). However, even if this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Plaintiff shall be required to make payments of 20% of the preceding month's deposits to the prisoner's account, in months that the account exceeds $10.00, until the full filing fee has been paid for this action. The Court will now review Plaintiff's Complaint.

/ / /

II. Screening the Complaint

Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority dismiss a case if the action is legally "frivolous or malicious," fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995).

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. North Star Intern. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 580 (9th Cir. 1983). In considering whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, all material allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980). Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).

As a general matter, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." "A case 'arises under' federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or 'where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.'" Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). The presence or absence offederal-question jurisdiction is governed by the "well-pleaded complaint rule." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, "federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Id. Here, Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on his attorney's representation of him in connection with his arrest for intent to commit larceny on or about May 28, 2019. He claims that attorney Matthew Lay only made one statement in arguing for his release, which did not have his best interest in mind. Further, he indicates that his attorney failed to visit him at CCDC in the 8 months and 1 week that he was represented in the case, which appears to have been in state court. However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to properly bring a claim under Section 1983 (see discussion below), federal question jurisdiction does not exist at this time.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a path for the private enforcement of substantive rights created by the Constitution and Federal Statutes. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff "must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A person acts under "color of law" if he "exercise[s] power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law." Id.

Plaintiff seeks to bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights against two attorneys, Rochelle T. Nguyen and Matthew Lay for ineffective assistance of counsel. However, well-established precedent indicates that Fourth Amendment principles, rather than Fourteenth Amendment due process principles, govern pretrial deprivations of liberty. See, e.g., Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S.Ct. 911, 917-19 (2017); Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273-74 (1994) (noting that the Fourth Amendment, "not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process,' must be the guide" for analyzing such claims); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of Fourteenth Amendment claim alleging false information in warrant affidavit). Further, under theSixth Amendment, an accused in a criminal prosecution is entitled to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, knowledge of the accusations against him, the ability to call and confront witnesses, and to assistance of counsel in his defense. U.S. Const. amend. VI. As relevant to this case, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984).

After pinpointing the specific constitutional rights at issue, "courts still must determine the elements of, and rules associated with, an action seeking damages for its violation." Manuel, 137 S.Ct. at 920 (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257-58, 98 S.Ct. 1042, (1978)). "In defining the contours and prerequisites of a § 1983 claim, including its rule of accrual," the Supreme Court instructed courts to first look to the common law tort most analogous to the plaintiff's claim. Id.; Bradford v. Scherschligt, 803 F.3d 382, 387-88 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388-89, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007)). "Sometimes, that review of common law will lead a court to adopt wholesale the rules that would apply in a suit involving the most analogous tort. But not always." Manuel, 137 S.Ct. at 920 (citing Wallace, 549 U.S. at 388-90, 127 S.Ct. 1091; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, (1994)). "Common-law principles are meant to guide rather than to control the definition of § 1983 claims, serving 'more as a source of inspired examples than of prefabricated components.'" Id. at 921 (quoting Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 258, 126 S.Ct. 1695 (2006)). "In applying, selecting among, or adjusting common-law approaches, courts must closely attend to the values and purposes of the constitutional right at issue." Id.

The common law tort of legal malpractice is the most analogous to Plaintiff's claim. Legal malpractice "is premised upon an attorney-client relationship, a duty owed to the client by the attorney, breach of that duty, and the breach as proximate cause of the client's damages." Hewitt v. Allen, 118 Nev. 216, 220-21, 43 P.3d 345, 347 (2002) (citation omitted). Legal malpractice focuses on whether the attorneys adhered to the standard of care in their representation. Mainor v. Nault, 120 Nev. 750, 774, 101 P.3d 308, 324 (2004), abrogated on other grounds by Delgado v. Am. Family Ins. Group, 125 Nev. 564, 570, 217 P.3d 563, 567 (2009).

To assert a claim for legal malpractice in Nevada, a plaintiff must allege: (1) an attorney-client relationship; (2) a duty owed to the client by the attorney to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity possess in exercising and performing the tasks which they undertake; (3) a breach of that duty; (4) the breach being the proximate cause of the client's damages; and (5) actual loss or damage resulting from the negligence. Mainor, 120 Nev. at 774, 101 P.3d at 324. To state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must allege that counsel's performance fell below the objective standard of reasonableness and, but for counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688.

An action for legal malpractice or ineffective assistance of counsel does not accrue until the underlying proceeding or criminal case is resolved. In typical civil cases, where "there has been no final...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT