appeal of the dismissal of his claims against the State Bar officers in a published opinion, and the facts and procedural history are set forth there. See Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.2007). Here, we deal with Appellant’s claims against Appellee Daetwyler. We review the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s claims de novo. See Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 772 (9th Cir. 2002). Appellant § 1983 claims against Appellee Daetwyler fail because he has failed to raise any factual allegations indicating that Appellee Daetwyler acted under color of state law by “jointly engaging] with state officials in the challenged action.” Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); see also Jensen v. Lane County, 222 F.3d 570, 574 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); id. at 575 (holding that for a private
holding that to prevail on a  1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law in other words that there was state action holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under  1983 holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that in order to prevail under  1983 a plaintiff must show 1 that defendants deprived him or her of a right secured by the constitution or laws of the united states and 2 that in doing so defendants acted under color of state law internal quotation marks omitted holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted