Case Information
*1 WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-2098-PHX-RCB (JFM) Howard Cochran,
ORDER Plaintiff,
vs.
Christopher Stavris,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Howard Cochran, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an Order filed on January 23, 2012, the Court dismissed the Complaint and this action for failure to state a claim without leave to amend because Plaintiff could not amend the Complaint to state a claim. (Doc. 10.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 12.)
Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the Complaint. (Doc. 13.) That motion will be denied for three reasons. First, this action has been dismissed and judgment entered. Second, as noted above, the Court has already concluded that his Complaint in this case cannot be amended to state a claim. [1] Third, Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended *2 complaint with his motion, which is required in order to seek leave to amend. For all three reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied . (Doc. 13.)
DATED this 1 st day of February, 2012. representing a criminal defendant is privately retained, a public defender, or court-appointed counsel, he does not act under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1981); Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc ). Doc. 10 at 4.
- 2 -
[1] In his Complaint, Plaintiff sued his former criminal defense attorney for violations 26 of his constitutional rights. As the Court previously stated: 27 A prerequisite for any relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are allegations to support 28 that a defendant acted under the color of state law. Whether an attorney