Detelin Draganov v. State of Washington

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DETELIN DRAGANOV, No. 13-35391
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00260-RSL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Detelin Draganov appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with
state court proceedings involving Draganov. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,
1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Draganov’s action because Draganov
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief under any viable
legal theory. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although
pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff still must present factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). Moreover, the Eleventh
Amendment bars Draganov’s action against the State of Washington. See Brooks
v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991)
(Eleventh Amendment immunity bars suits in federal court against a state by its
own citizens).
We reject Draganov’s contention, set forth in his notice of appeal, that the
district court’s dismissal order improperly denied Draganov his right to a fair jury
trial.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-35391