Unpublished Disposition, 914 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Karl L. Guillen, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Guillen alleged that his private attorney breached their fee agreement and rendered him ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.

Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." Id. A district court must afford a pro se plaintiff notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

To establish a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege facts showing a deprivation of a constitutional right, privilege, or immunity by a person acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Here, Guillen cannot state a section 1983 claim against his attorney, a private person who does not act under color of law. Because the deficiencies of his complaint cannot be cured by amendment, we affirm the district court's dismissal. See Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448.

AFFIRMED.