Charles Hill v. Debra Bookout

MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Charles H. Hill appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), against an assistant federal public defender for alleged ineffective assistance of counsel during his federal habeas proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Hill’s action was proper because a federal public defender does not act under color of federal law when performing the traditional role of a lawyer representing an indigent criminal defendant. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 389 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 (for a Bivens action, plaintiff must plead and prove that a federal officer acted under color of federal law during the alleged deprivation of a constitutional or…