FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES H. HILL, No. 13-16891
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00382-LRH-
WGC
v.
DEBRA A. BOOKOUT, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
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 (1971), against an assistant federal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 (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 federally
protected right); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (public
defender does not act under color of federal law in performing the identical
functions as a lawyer to an indigent defendant in a federal criminal proceeding).
Hill’s remaining contentions are foreclosed by our conclusion that defendant
did not act under color of federal law.
Hill’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on May 15,
2014, is denied as moot because the district court previously granted him leave to
2 13-16891
proceed in forma pauperis, and his in forma pauperis status continues in this court.
Hill’s request for “Amended FRAP Rules Book July 2014” and “docket
entries on all cases,” filed on July 13, 2014, and his motion to Expand the Record,
filed on August 11, 2014, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-16891