United States v. 2020-10-29 | 19-36052 | RALPH HERNANDEZ V. OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RALPH HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, State
of Alaska; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

SHELLEY KAY CHAFFIN,

Defendant.

No. 19-36052

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00201-TMB

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 26, 2020
**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Ralph Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

OCT 29 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-36052
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims against his
court-appointed attorneys in his state criminal case. 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)(B)(ii)). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hernandez’s claims against defendants
Office of Public Advocacy, Van Demark, Lowery, Kelley, and Corrigan because
they are not state actors. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To state a
claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must . . . show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.”); Miranda v. Clark
County, Nev., 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (attorneys appointed to
represent criminal defendants in state criminal proceedings are not state actors).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez’s motion
for leave to amend to add a claim against defendant Chaffin because amendment
would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034,
1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district
court may dismiss without leave where amendment would be futile).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.