(PC) Price v. San Joaquin County et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUGENE LEON PRICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-2809-JDP (P)
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, brings an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim against attorney Emily Chrim and further alleges that San Joaquin County is
responsible for providing him with an ineffective attorney. The allegations fail to state a claim.
Plaintiff may, if he chooses, file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies noted
herein. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, makes the required
showing and will be granted.
Screening and Pleading Requirements
A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed
in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and
dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
Case 2:25-cv-02809-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. Id.
A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not
require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not
identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024,
1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that
give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264
n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).
The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it
appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).
However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements
of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,
1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
Analysis
Plaintiff alleges that his court-appointed criminal defense attorney, defendant Emily
Chrim, provided him ineffective counsel. He also claims that San Joaquin County is responsible
for appointing him an ineffective attorney. ECF No. 1 at 4-5.
A threshold requirement for proceeding with any 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is that the
defendant must have acted “under color of state law” with respect to the alleged deprivation of
the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Here, plaintiff asserts
claims against Chrim, a court-appointed defense attorney. But it is settled law that a court-
Case 2:25-cv-02809-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
appointed criminal defense attorney does not act under color of state law. See Miranda v. Clark
Cnty., 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)).
But more importantly, plaintiff’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not properly
brought as claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Claims for ineffective assistance of counsel are not
generally recognized under § 1983. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004). When a
state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody—either the fact of confinement or the
duration of confinement—and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier
or immediate release, such a challenge is cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Neal v. Shimoda,
131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir.
1995) (per curiam). Because plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable under § 1983, this action
should be dismissed so plaintiff can seek whatever relief may be available to him through a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Plaintiff’s claim against San Joaquin County fails, too. A municipality can be sued under
§ 1983 where the challenged action was implemented or executed under a policy statement,
ordinance, regulation, or decision that has been adopted or promulgated by that body’s officers.
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). The first question in this analysis is
whether a constitutional violation occurred. See Lockett v. Cnty. of L.A., 977 F.3d 737, 741 (9th
Cir. 2020) (noting that Monell claims are “contingent on a violation of constitutional rights”)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Then, a court looks to the legal framework on which plaintiff
bases his Monell claim. Monell, 436 U.S. at 708. Importantly, “[p]laintiff must do more than
allege in a conclusory fashion that the County maintains an unwritten policy or custom of
permitting the types of wrongs Plaintiff experienced.” Segura v. City of La Mesa, 647 F. Supp.
3d 926, 936 (S.D. Cal. 2022). Here, plaintiff fails to state a sufficient Monell claim against the
County because plaintiff has not alleged a constitutional violation.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow
plaintiff a final chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be
dismissed. Plaintiff should take care to add specific factual allegations against each defendant. If
Case 2:25-cv-02809-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current
one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means
that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior
pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no
longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will
need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The
amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case
number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be
dismissed.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.
3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended
complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.
4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may
result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 1, 2025
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02809-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 12/01/25 Page 4 of 4