22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4df,MEMORANDUM 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. § 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 , 103 S.Ct. 1108 , 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (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., 132 Ariz. 498 , 647 P.2d 629, 631 (1982) (elements of fraud under Arizona law). Borecki’s motion to permit filing of physical exhibits is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T511,

MEMORANDUM

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. § 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 , 103 S.Ct. 1108 , 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (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., 132 Ariz. 498 , 647 P.2d 629, 631 (1982) (elements of fraud under Arizona law).

Borecki’s motion to permit filing of physical exhibits is denied. AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.