Garnier

Garnier v. Clarke

Good Law
332 F. App'x 416
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 17, 2009No. 08-35499California269 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Henry B. Gamier, Jr., a former Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2) and 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (reviewing dismissal under § 1915A); Barren v. Hartington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (reviewing dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garnier’s action for failure to state a claim. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 , 102 S.Ct. 445 , 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981) (“[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.”); Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1168 (9th Cir.2005) (“[D]ifferent treatment of unlike groups does not support an equal protection claim.”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (“Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.”).

Gamier has abandoned any challenge…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.