Smith v. Perkins, 2:23-cv-01931

Plaintiff, John Michael Smith, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada related to alleged improprieties in state court probate proceedings.
Smith claims there was a conspiracy between the special administrator of an estate and private attorneys to obtain a default judgment against him through inadequate notice.
The Court previously granted Smith permission to proceed in forma pauperis, conditioned on a partial filing fee, which he paid.
Smith brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations by the defendants.
Defendants include the appointed special administrator and two private attorneys involved in the state probate proceedings.
The Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and dismissed it for failing to state a claim, with leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the defendants acted under color of state law	Defendants conspired to violate Smith's constitutional rights in court	Private attorneys/administrator are not state actors	Defendants did not act under color of state law; dismissed
Relief from state probate court default order	Federal court should provide relief from the default	Federal court has no jurisdiction over state probate matters	Not proper for federal court; plaintiff advised to seek relief in state court

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (defining "under color of state law" for § 1983 claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards for federal complaints)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (standard for plausibility in pleadings)
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (distinction between factual and legal allegations in pleadings)
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1995) (leave to amend after dismissal under § 1915)