SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Randal Licari appeals from the September 30, 2008 judgment of the District Court dismissing plaintiffs complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 1 On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in dismissing plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because defendant was a private attorney, and not a state actor. Plaintiff also reasserts on appeal claims that could be construed as state law tort claims, over which the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because both plaintiff and defendant are residents of Connecticut. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

First, we review the District Court’s dismissal of Licari’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We review the District Court’s sna sponte dismissal of plaintiffs complaint de novo. See Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-150 (2d Cir. 2001). To successfully state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant was acting under color of state law. Here, plaintiff alleges that Voog, a private attorney hired by Licari to represent him during criminal proceedings, committed malpractice. It is well established that private attorneys — even if the attorney was court appointed — are not state actors for the purposes of § 1983 claims. See Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 65-66 (2d Cir. 1997). Accordingly, a suit alleging that Voog violated Licari’s rights under federal law is frivolous, and thus the District Court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs claims under § 1983.

Next, we review the District Court’s dismissal of Licari’s related state law claims. Construing Licari’s complaint liberally, the District Court determined that Licari asserted various state law tort claims. The District Court, however, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve these claims, since both plaintiff and defendant are residents of Connecticut and no claims arising under federal law remained. We conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs remaining state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. 2

For the reasons stated above, the September 30, 2008 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.