5 . The court notes that although Ammy reported that she was “fearful” of Keosay to DeVos during their initial meeting, Ammy did not give any specifics and did not mention Keo-say’s threat to kill her. 6 . Because the court has granted defendant Driebilbus's motion for summary judgment on this ground, the court need not tarry long on her alternative argument for summary judgment — that defendant Driebilbus did not act under color of state law. Based on the record before the court, the court finds that defendant Driebilbus, as a court appointed guardian ad litem/attorney for Ammy, performed “traditional lawyer functions" before the juvenile court and therefore did not act under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Bolin v. Chavez, 24 Fed. Appx. 936, 939-40,
holding um did not act under color of state law when it terminated an employee holding that public defenders do not act under color of state law and therefore are not subject to suit under 42 usc  1983 holding that a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyers traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding holding that private attorney who acted as courtappointed counsel for child in state juvenile delinquency proceedings was not acting under color of state law holding that a town manager did not act under color of state law when making allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff