Arnette v. State of Washington, 2:17-cv-00451

Plaintiff William Eric Arnette, incarcerated in Washington, sued the State of Washington and King County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging ineffective assistance by his appointed counsel and a speedy-trial violation.
The District Court initially declined to serve the complaint, identifying defects: improper defendants, claims against state actors/entities barred, and Heck-barred challenges to his conviction.
Arnette was granted leave to amend; he filed an amended complaint that repeated the same legal deficiencies.
Allegations: his appointed counsel (who is the wife of a judge who previously convicted him as a juvenile) provided ineffective assistance; he seeks an investigation and money damages.
The magistrate judge found Arnette did not plead that his conviction had been invalidated, failed to name proper § 1983 defendants (public defender, state agencies), and did not plead a Monell theory against King County.
Recommendation: dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim; instructions for filing objections and scheduling provided.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether damages challenging conviction are cognizable under § 1983	Arnette seeks damages for counsel's conduct that led to his conviction	State asserts such claims must be invalidated first under Heck	Dismissed: claim is Heck-barred because conviction has not been reversed or otherwise invalidated
Whether appointed public defender is a state actor under § 1983	Arnette treats his public defender as a state actor liable under § 1983	Public defender performs traditional lawyer functions and is not a state actor	Dismissed as to public defender: not a § 1983 defendant (Polk County)
Whether King County / King County Dept. for the Accused can be sued as a municipal defendant	Arnette named county entities but did not allege municipal policy/custom causing violation	County argues no Monell allegation showing policy, custom, or ratification	Dismissed: no Monell claim pleaded against King County; department not a proper § 1983 defendant
Whether the State of Washington and state agencies are proper § 1983 defendants	Arnette named the State of Washington	State contends Eleventh Amendment bars suit and states are not "persons" under § 1983	Dismissed: State and state agencies immune and not proper § 1983 defendants (Will, Eleventh Amendment)

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (damages claim attacking conviction requires prior invalidation of that conviction)
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (appointed public defenders not state actors for § 1983 purposes when performing traditional functions)
Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465 (9th Cir. 2002) (applies Polk County in Ninth Circuit context)
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) (limits when governmental entities may be liable)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires unconstitutional policy, custom, or ratification)
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states and state officials sued in their official capacity are not "persons" under § 1983)
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (state sovereign immunity from private suits in state courts)
Whiteside v. State of Washington, 534 F. Supp. 774 (E.D. Wash. 1982) (Washington has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity)