Case Name: Kendel Vance JENSEN and Amber Jensen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kelley DOUGLAS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-26
Citations: 393 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 09-16121
Parties: Kendel Vance JENSEN and Amber Jensen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kelley DOUGLAS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 458–458

Head Matter:
Kendel Vance JENSEN and Amber Jensen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kelley DOUGLAS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16121.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
Filed Aug. 26, 2010.
Kendel Vance Jensen, Cottonwood, AZ, pro se.
Amber Jensen, Cottonwood, AZ, pro se.
Brent D. Harris, Esquire, Harris & Winger PC, Flagstaff, AZ, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, the Jensens’ request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kendel Vance and Amber Jensen appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging injuries arising from child dependency proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Peterson v. California, 604 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action against defendant Harris, a private attorney appointed by the court to represent Amber Jensen in the child dependency proceedings, because he did not act under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 n. 7, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981) (noting that a private attorney, even one appointed by the court, does not act under the color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when performing the traditional role of an attorney).
The Jensens' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.