Eugenio Lopez Rodriguez, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Richard J. Knowles, Defendant-appellee, 69 F.3d 548 (10th Cir. 1995)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT¹ 

THOMPSON, District Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Rodriguez sued Mr. Knowles, a lawyer who was appointed to represent Mr. Rodriguez in a previous habeas proceeding. He asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C.1983 and alleged a conspiracy between Mr. Knowles and certain state officials to secure the denial of Mr. Rodriguez's habeas petition. The district court dismissed the case sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) for failure to state a claim. The court held that a court-appointed lawyer is not a state actor for the purposes of 1983, Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981), and that Mr. Rodriguez's allegations of conspiracy, Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 (1984), were too vague to support a claim. Mr. Rodriguez appeals from the dismissal of his suit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and we affirm.

Mr. Rodriguez argues that the district court erred in not giving him an opportunity to amend his complaint. However, he does not state what facts he would allege to further support his claims. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the district court erred. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding pro se litigant must allege sufficient facts to support claims).

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court