T he H on or abl e Ros ema ry S. Po ol er , o r igi nally s che duledto be a m emb er of th e pan el * hear in g thi s app eal, was un abl e t o p ar ti cip ate . T he ap peal has bee n d ecid ed b y the r emaining t wo mem ber s of

th e pan el, who ar e inagr eem ent . See 2d Cir. LocalRule s, Int ernal Operating Procedure E(b). 1 08- 4920- pr L i car i v. V oog UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER
Ru li ng s b y su m m ar

y o r de r do no t h ave pr ece de nt ial e ff ect . Ci ta ti onto a su m m ar y o r de r filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is go v e rned by Federal Rule of Appellat e P r oc ed ur e 32 .1 a nd

th is c ou r t’ s Loc al

Ru le 32. 1.1. Whe n cit in g a su m m ar y o r de r ina d oc um en t f

il ed with th is court, a par ty must cit e either the Feder al Appendix or an electronic d atabase (with t he notati on “summ ary ord er”). A par ty citing a summar y order must serve a copy of it o n any part y not r epresented by cou nsel. At a stated term of the Unit ed States Courtof Appeals for th e Second Circuit , held at th e Daniel Pat rick Moynihan United States Courth ouse, 500 P earl Str eet, in th e City of New York, on the 26 day of April, t

wo thousand t en. th PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES ,

RI C HA R D C. W ES L EY , Circuit Jud ges . *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x R AND AL L I CARI ,

Pl aint iff -A ppella nt , -v.- No. 08-4920-pr N OR MA N J. V OOG , A T T ORNEY ,

Defenda nt-App ellee

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x CO UN SE L F OR

AP P ELLAN T: Rand al L icar i, pro se, N ew tow n, C T. CO UN SE L F OR

AP P ELLAN T: Antho ny N uzz o, J r ., N uzz o & Rob er ts , L .L .C., Ches ir e, C T.28 U. S. C . § 19 15 , p rov id in g f or i n fo rma pa up eris p roc ee di ng s in the fe de ra l c ou rts, sta te s, 1 inr elev ant

par t, as fo llo ws : “[

T ]h e co ur t s hall dis mi s s th e cas e at any t im e if th e co ur t d et er mi nes that . . . the ac tion or appeal is frivolous or malici ous.” 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e)(2)(B )(1). 2 App eal f r oma ju dgm ent

of th e Unit ed S tat es Di s tr

ict Cou r t f or th e Di s tr ict of Con nec ti cut

(Alvi n W. T ho mp s on , Judge

). UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ UDGED, AN D D ECREED tha t th e j ud gm en t of the Di stri ctC ou rt i s AF F IRME D

. Plaintiff Randa l Licari appe als from the Septembe r 30, 2008 judgment of the District Court di s mi s s in g pl ain ti ff

’s com pl ain t as fr

ivo lo us pu r s uan t t o 2 8 U. S.C. § 19 15(e) (2)( B )( i)
. Onapp eal, 1 pl ain ti ff ar gue s th at the D is tr

ict Cou r t e r r ed i n dis mi s s ing pl ain ti ff ’s clai ms un der

42 U .S. C. § 1 983 beca use defendant wa s a private attorney, a nd not a state actor. Plaintiff also reass erts on appeal cla ims tha t c ou ld be co nstr ue d a s sta te law t ortcl aim s, o ve r whi ch the Di stri ctC ou rt d ec li ne d to ex er ci se s up pl eme nt al j ur

is di ct io n b ecau s e bo thpl ain ti ff

anddef end ant ar e r es id ent s of

Con nec ti cut . We as s um e the p ar ti es ’ f

amilia r it y with the f

act s andpr oce du r al his to ry of this cas e. Fi r s t, we r evi ew the D is tr

ict Cou r t’ s di s mi s s al o f L

icar i’s clai ms un der

42 U .S. C. § 1 983 . We re vi ewthe Di stri ctC ou rt’ s sua sponte dismis sal of plaintiff’s complaint de novo

. See Giano v. Goo rd , 25 0 F.3d 146, 149-150 (2d C ir. 2001). To s ucce ss fully state a cla im under 42 U.S.C . § 1983, a pla intiff mu s t alleg e that

th e de fe nd ant

was act ing un der col or of s tat e law . H er e, p lai nt

if f alle ges th at V oo g, a pr iva te att orney

hi r ed b y L

icar i t o r epr es ent

hi m d ur ing cr im in al p r oce edi ngs , co mmit te d malpractic e. It is well established that private a ttorneys—even if the attorney was court app oi nt ed— ar e no t s tat e act or s fo r th e pu rpo s es of

§ 19 83 c lai ms . Se e Ro dri

que z v. We pri n , 11 6 F .3d 62, 65- 66 (

2dCir . 19 97) . Acc or di ngl y, a s ui t alleg

ing that Voo g vi ol ate d L

icar i’s r igh ts un der

fe der al law i s fr ivo lo us , an d thu s th e Di s tr ict Cou r t didno t e r r

indi s mi s s ing pl ain ti ff

’s clai ms un der

§ 19 83. Next, we revi ew the District Court’s dis miss al of Licari’s related state lawclai ms. Construing Licari’s complaint libe rally, the District Court determined that Licari asserted various s tate lawtort cl aim s. Th e D ist ric t C ou rt, ho we ve r, c on cl ud ed tha t i t l a ck ed ju risd ic ti on to r eso lv e t he se c la im s, s in ce b oth p lai nt

if f a nddef end ant ar e r es id ent s of

Con nec ti cut

andno clai ms ar

is ing un der

fe der al law rema ined. W e conc lude that the District Court did not err in dismiss ing plai ntiff’s remainingB ecau s e pro se lit igan ts ar e gr ant ed w

id e lat itud e with p r oce du r al rul es , se e I n r e Sims , 53 4 2 F.3d 117, 133 (2d C ir. 2008), we c onstrue the appe llant’s submis sion of August 20, 2009 a s a motion fo r leav e t o f ile an am end ed b r

ief , whichwe gr ant . We h ave ther ef or e co ns id er ed the ap pellan t’ s submis sion as a part of the r ecord. Neve rtheless , for the r easons set f orth in this order, we find the argum ent s s tat ed ther einto be w itho ut mer it
. 3 state law c laims for lack of jurisdiction. 2
Fo r th e r eas on s s tat ed ab ov e, the S ept emb er 30, 200 8 ju dgm ent

of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i s AF F IRME D

. FO R T HE CO URT , Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk