Harris v. ACLU of Idaho

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
STEVEN L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACLU OF IDAHO,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00479-DCN
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY
SCREENING JUDGE
The Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiff Steven L. Harris’s Complaint
because of Plaintiff’s status as an inmate and in forma pauperis request. A “conditional
filing” means that a plaintiff must obtain authorization from the Court to proceed. Upon
screening, the Court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that the Complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order
directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint if Plaintiff intends to proceed.
1. 	Standards of Law for Screening Complaints
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim for
relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient
Case 1:25-cv-00479-DCN Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 7

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2
for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
To state an actionable claim, a plaintiff must provide “enough factual matter (taken
as true) to suggest” that the defendant committed the unlawful act, meaning that sufficient
facts are pled “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of
illegal [activity].” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). “A pleading that
offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.’” Iqbal, 556 US. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
The Court liberally construes the pleadings to determine whether a case should be
dismissed for a failure to plead sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory or for
the absence of a cognizable legal theory. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional
claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable factual and legal basis. See Jackson v.
Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (discussing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6)), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 	1130 	(9th 	Cir. 	2000). 	Moreover, 	even 	if 	a 	complaint 	meets 	the 	pleading
requirements, dismissal under §§ 1915 and 1915A is still appropriate if an affirmative
defense is an “obvious bar to securing relief on the face of the complaint.” Washington v.
Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
2. 	Factual Allegations
Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction. Plaintiff
sues the ACLU of Idaho, alleging constitutional violations in connection with his state
Case 1:25-cv-00479-DCN Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 7

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3
court criminal case. It appears that Plaintiff asked the ACLU to represent him and that the
request was denied. Plaintiff claims the refusal to represent him violates the First, Fifth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments and constitutes torture. Compl., Dkt. 3, at 2.
3. 	Discussion
Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court will,
however, grant Plaintiff 28 days to amend the Complaint. Any amended complaint should
take into consideration the following.
Plaintiff brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute.1 To state
a plausible civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the
Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person acting
under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). That is,
a defendant is subject to suit under § 1983 only if the defendant is a state actor.
Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for purely private conduct, “no matter how
unfair that conduct may be.” NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191 (1988). A private
party can be subject to suit under § 1983 for violating a plaintiff’s civil rights “if, though
only if, there is such a close nexus between the State and the challenged action that
seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.” Brentwood
Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
1 Though Plaintiff has checked the box on the form complaint stating that asks the Court to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff does not identify or assert any such state law
claims in the body of his Complaint. Therefore, the Court addresses only Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims.
Case 1:25-cv-00479-DCN Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 7

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4
The ACLU of Idaho is not a governmental entity. Therefore, it is not a state actor.
Plaintiff claims that the ACLU is subject to § 1983 liability because it accepts federal
funds. However, this is insufficient to show state action. Rather, a private party may be
deemed a state actor only in the following situations: (1) the private party’s action results
from the state’s “exercise of coercive power” or “significant encouragement”; (2) the
private party participates in “joint activity” with the state; (3) the private party is
“controlled by an agency of the State”; (4) the private party “has been delegated a public
function by the State”; and (5) the private party is “entwined with governmental policies,”
or “the government is entwined in [the private party’s] management or control.” Id. at 296
(internal quotation marks omitted).
The Complaint does not plausibly suggest that any of these circumstances exist in
his case. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he must set forth facts supporting a
reasonable inference that the ACLU of Idaho should be considered a state actor.
The Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for an additional reason. A person
does not have a constitutional right to force a particular attorney or organization to
represent them. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted on this basis, as well.
4. 	Standards for Amended Complaint
If Plaintiff chooses to amend the Complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the
actions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See
Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir. 1980), abrogated on other grounds by Kay v.
Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991). Plaintiff must also allege a sufficient causal connection
Case 1:25-cv-00479-DCN Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 7

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 5
between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045;
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). “Vague and conclusory allegations of
official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to
dismiss” or to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents
of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“Nor
does 	a 	complaint 	suffice 	if 	it 	tenders 	naked 	assertions 	devoid 	of 	further 	factual
enhancement.”) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Rather, for each cause of action against each defendant, Plaintiff must state the
following: (1) the name of the person or entity that caused the alleged deprivation of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights; (2) facts showing the defendant is a state actor (such as
state employment or a state contract) or a private entity performing a state function; (3) the
dates on which the conduct of the defendant allegedly took place; (4) the specific conduct
or action Plaintiff alleges is unconstitutional; (5) the particular constitutional or statutory
provision Plaintiff alleges has been violated; (6) facts alleging the elements of the violation
are met; (7) the injury or damages Plaintiff personally suffered; and (8) the particular type
of relief Plaintiff is seeking from each defendant.
Further, any amended complaint must contain all of Plaintiff’s allegations in a single
pleading and cannot rely upon, attach, or incorporate by reference other pleadings or
documents. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[An]
amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-
existent.”), overruled in part on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896,
(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d
Case 1:25-cv-00479-DCN Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 7

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 6
1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the district court erred by entering judgment
against a party named in the initial complaint, but not in the amended complaint).
Plaintiff must set forth each different factual allegation in a separate, numbered
paragraph. The amended complaint must be legibly written or typed in its entirety, and it
should be clearly designated as the “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff’s name and address
should be clearly printed at the top left corner of the first page of each document filed with
the Court.
If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must also file a “Motion to Review
the Amended Complaint.” If Plaintiff does not amend within 28 days, or if the amendment
does not comply with Rule 8, this case may be dismissed without further notice. See Knapp
v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (“When a litigant knowingly and repeatedly
refuses to conform his pleadings to the requirements of the Federal Rules, it is reasonable
to conclude that the litigant simply cannot state a claim.”).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. 	The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff has 28 days within which to file an amended complaint as described
above. If Plaintiff does so, Plaintiff must file (along with the amended
complaint) a Motion to Review the Amended Complaint. Alternatively,
Plaintiff may file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal if Plaintiff no longer
Case 1:25-cv-00479-DCN Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 6 of 7

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 7
intends to pursue this case.2
2. 	If Plaintiff does not file a timely amended complaint, this case may be
dismissed with prejudice and without further notice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, failure to prosecute, or failure to comply
with a Court order. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
3. 	Because an amended complaint is required for Plaintiff to proceed, Plaintiff’s
request for appointment of counsel (contained in the Complaint) is DENIED
without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew the request for counsel in an amended
complaint.
DATED: February 5, 2026
_________________________
David C. Nye
U.S. District Court Judge
2 A voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is not a dismissal for frivolity, for
maliciousness, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and, therefore, does not count
as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Spencer v. Barajas, 140 F.4th 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2025).
Case 1:25-cv-00479-DCN Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 7 of 7