Case Name: Abdus SHAHID, Halima Ansari, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROOKLYN LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-15
Citations: 114 F. App'x 35
Docket Number: Docket No. 03-9323
Parties: Abdus SHAHID, Halima Ansari, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROOKLYN LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: WALKER, Chief Judge, POOLER, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 35–36

Head Matter:
Abdus SHAHID, Halima Ansari, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROOKLYN LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 03-9323.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 15, 2004.
Abdus Shahid, Halima Ansari, New York, NY, for Appellants, pro se.
William D. Buckley, Garbarini & Scher, P.C., New York, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: WALKER, Chief Judge, POOLER, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from the November 5, 2003 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Nicholas G. Garaufis, Judge) dismissing their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Shahid and An-sari argue that the district court erred in finding: (1) that they did not have a private right of action under the Legal Services Corporation Act ("LSC Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 2996; and (2) that defendantappellee Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation was not acting under color of state law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.
As the district court properly concluded, the LSC Act does not provide a private right of action under which appellants can sue. See, e.g., Reg'l Mgmt. Corp. v. Legal Servs. Corp., 186 F.3d 457, 462-64 (4th Cir.1999). The cases cited by appellants are inapposite, as they deal with disputes between the Legal Services Corporation ("LSC") and local legal aid organizations it funds. As a result, there was no basis for judicial review of appellants' claim, and it was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
As for appellants' § 1983 claim, this court has previously held that an attorney receiving public funds to represent a client and performing a lawyer's "traditional functions" does not act under color of state law. Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 65-66 (2d Cir.1997). A complaint that fails to allege state action fails to state an actionable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. Appellants' second claim was therefore properly dismissed.
We have carefully reviewed appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.