Unpublished Disposition, 887 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
Barbara J. MEANS, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.James LEA, Defendant-Appellee,
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 23, 1989.* Decided Oct. 2, 1989.
Before BARNES, WALLACE and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges.
Barbara J. Means appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against attorney James Lea. She contends that the district court erred by dismissing her section 1983 action against James Lea and denying her leave to file a second amended complaint. We disagree.
To state a claim under section 1983, Means must show two essential elements: (1) that the defendant acted under color of state law; and (2) that the defendant caused her to be deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Howerton v. Gabica, 708 F.2d 380, 382 (9th Cir. 1983). Because Means failed to allege specific facts indicating that Lea acted under color of state law, the district court properly dismissed her civil rights action. The district court properly denied Means' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint because she failed to cure the deficiencies in her original complaint and first amended complaint, despite clear instructions from the district court identifying the deficiencies. Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987) (district court's denial of leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where the pleadings demonstrate that further amendment would be futile).