Case Name: Mary C. KERNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jorge MENDEZ; Patrick Phillips; United Airlines (UAL); Ken Smart; United Air Lines, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-12
Citations: 403 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 09-16970
Parties: Mary C. KERNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jorge MENDEZ; Patrick Phillips; United Airlines (UAL); Ken Smart; United Air Lines, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RYMER, Circuit Judge, and TRAGER, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 403
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
Mary C. KERNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jorge MENDEZ; Patrick Phillips; United Airlines (UAL); Ken Smart; United Air Lines, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16970.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 2, 2010.
Filed Nov. 12, 2010.
Carl B. Shapiro, Esquire, Shapiro & Shapiro, San Anselmo, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Richard G. Grotch, Coddington, Hicks & Danforth, Redwood City, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RYMER, Circuit Judge, and TRAGER, District Judge.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable David G. Trager, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Mary C. Kerner ("plaintiff') appeals from an order issued by the District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") against defendants United Airlines and three United Airlines employees, including Jorge Mendez (collectively, "defendants"). Given the parties' familiarity with the facts, we do not recount them here. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the following reasons, the decision of the district court is affirmed.
A district court's decision to dismiss a Section 1983 action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Watson v. Weeks, 436 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2006). A plaintiff asserting a Section 1983 claim must allege the deprivation of a constitutional right by a defendant acting under color of state law. Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 444 (9th Cir.2002).
Mendez was not acting under color of state law. See Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1150-56 (9th Cir.1989); Ibrahim v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 538 F.3d 1250, 1257-58 (9th Cir.2008). Kerner has not alleged facts showing that the state may "fairly be blamed" for the defendants' conduct. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982).
Because the district court correctly concluded that the alleged deprivation underlying Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim was not under "color of state law," the district court's decision is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.