(PC) Stallworth v. Rosenfeld, 2:15-cv-01696

Stallworth, a civil detainee under SVPA, seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from Rosenfeld, his court-appointed SVPA counsel, at Coalinga State Hospital.
Plaintiff alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and related due process and state-law claims arising from the SVPA proceedings.
The SVPA proceedings are civil, yet plaintiff maintains Rosenfeld acted under color of state law in representing him.
The court performs initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and must dismiss frivolous or non-viable claims, or those without state-action basis.
The court determines Rosenfeld, as appointed counsel in the SVPA process, did not act under color of state law, and the action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rosenfeld acted under color of state law	Stallworth argues Rosenfeld, as his appointed SVPA counsel, acted under color of state law.	Rosenfeld acted as traditional counsel; public defenders in such roles are not state actors for § 1983 purposes.	No state-action; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (public defender not acting under color of state law when performing traditional functions)
Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465 (9th Cir. en banc 2003) (public defender independence judged by function in criminal proceedings)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (color-of-state-law requirement for § 1983 actions)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (§ 1983 standards and vindicating federal rights)
Gritchen v. Collier, 254 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2001) (the nature and context of the function determines state action)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (liberality toward pro se pleadings and related standards)