Gober v. Arnold, 3:20-cv-00484

Pro se inmate Adam Gober sued his former criminal defense attorney, Carl E. Arnold, alleging Arnold failed to return court/trial documents the state court ordered him to provide, which Gober says harmed his post-conviction proceedings.
Gober asserted violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights, Eighth Amendment rights, and a Nevada statute (NRS § 199.340).
Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal for failure to state a claim; Gober filed a timely objection.
The District Court conducted de novo review, adopted the R&R, overruled Gober’s objection, and dismissed the action with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under § 1983 because Arnold is a private attorney not acting under color of state law.
The Court granted Gober leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed an initial partial filing fee; all other pending motions were denied as moot; the Court refused leave to amend because the jurisdictional defect could not be cured.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Arnold acted under color of state law for § 1983	Arnold acted under color when representing Gober and when subject to state court orders	Arnold is a private attorney performing traditional lawyer functions, not a state actor	Attorney not acting under color of state law; § 1983 claims fail
Whether federal court may compel compliance with state-court orders/enjoin state contempt	Federal court should enforce state-court orders and award relief for withheld documents	Relief belongs in state court; federal interference improper	Federal courts should abstain; state forum is proper remedy
Whether conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 242) or concerted action with state actors was alleged	Gober cites § 242 suggesting conspiracy to violate rights	No allegations showing conspiracy or concert with state actors	Conspiracy theory not pleaded or supported; claim fails
Whether leave to amend should be granted	Requests opportunity to amend to cure defects	Jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by amendment	Dismissal with prejudice; no leave to amend

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (establishes that § 1983 requires action under color of state law)
Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702 (private parties generally not state actors under § 1983)
Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826 (inquiry whether private conduct is "fairly attributable" to the government)
Deleo v. Rudin, 328 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (attorney performing traditional counsel functions is not acting under color of state law)
Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state contempt proceedings)