ENGLISH III v. Hughes, First Name Unknown; et al., Defendants. (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Josiah English III appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from the violation of his attorney-client privilege. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed English's action because English failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-19, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981) (a private attorney or a public defender does not act under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983); Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires execution of policy or custom that inflicts plaintiff's constitutional injury); Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 863 (9th Cir. 1992) (attorney-client privilege is not a constitutional right except in the criminal context under the Sixth Amendment; a plaintiff must show that he was “substantially prejudiced”).

AFFIRMED.