Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0520-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Detelin DRAGANOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-35391.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2014.
    Detelin Draganov, Bellevue, WA, pro se.
    
      Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. § 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.