HENRYK BORECKI V. SAFEGUARD SECURITY AND COMM., No. 12-16156 (9th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 04 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HENRYK S. BORECKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-16156 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01983-GMS v. MEMORANDUM * SAFEGUARD SECURITY AND COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 24, 2013 ** Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Henryk S. Borecki appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendants provided false information at his unemployment administrative hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1291. We review de novo. Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Borecki s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim because Borecki failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted under color of state law. See id. at 707-08 (private parties do not generally act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes); see also Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329-30 (1983) (private party s testimony in court is not act performed under color of state law). The district court properly dismissed Borecki s fraud claim because Borecki failed to allege facts sufficient to show all the elements of fraud. See Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., 647 P.2d 629, 631 (Ariz. 1982) (elements of fraud under Arizona law). Borecki s motion to permit filing of physical exhibits is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 12-16156

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.