Sepehry-Fard v. Bank of New York Mellon, N.A.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Fareed Sepehry-Fard appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising out of his mortgage loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sepehry-Fard’s §§ 1983 and 1985 claims because Sepehry-Fard failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted under color of state law. See Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir.2006) (to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person “acting under color of state law” committed the conduct at issue); Caldeira v. County of Kauai, 866 F.2d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir.1989) (absence of § 1983 deprivation precludes a § 1985 conspiracy claim predicated on same allegations); see also Apao v. Bank of N.Y., 324 F.3d 1091 , 1094-95 (9th Cir.2003) (nonjudicial foreclosure was not state action and therefore did not implicate due process). The court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave…