Henryk S. Borecki v. Safeguard Security and Communications Incorporated;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENRYK S. BORECKI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAFEGUARD SECURITY AND
COMMUNICATIONS
INCORPORATED; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16156
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01983-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Henryk S. Borecki appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging that defendants provided false information at his
unemployment administrative hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-16156 2
§ 1291. We review de novo. Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 1991).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Borecki’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim
because Borecki failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted
under color of state law. See id. at 707-08 (private parties do not generally act
under color of state law for § 1983 purposes); see also Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
325, 329-30 (1983) (private party’s testimony in court is not act performed under
color of state law).
The district court properly dismissed Borecki’s fraud claim because Borecki
failed to allege facts sufficient to show all the elements of fraud. See Echols v.
Beauty Built Homes, Inc., 647 P.2d 629, 631 (Ariz. 1982) (elements of fraud under
Arizona law).
Borecki’s motion to permit filing of physical exhibits is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --