U.S. 409, 427, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1975). Furthermore, LaWall cannot be sued in her capacity as the chief county attorney for actions taken by her staff. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989). Dunlap failed to state a claim against public defender Harriette Levitt because she was not acting under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 321, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). The district court properly determined that the claim against Andrew Novak was barred because it implied the invalidity of Dunlap’s conviction. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-84, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Dunlap’s remaining claims are without merit and were properly dismissed. See Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-09 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325,
holding that private attorney who acted as courtappointed counsel for child in state juvenile delinquency proceedings was not acting under color of state law holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 holding that massachusetts statute did not create a sufficiently close nexus between private hospital and the state to warrant labeling private actors state actors holding intentional gender discrimination in public employment by persons acting under color of state law violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and is actionable under section 1983