IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

DIMITAR K. DERMENDZIEV,

 Appellant,

 v.

JACK WARNER,

 Respondent.

 No. 81319-6-I

 UNPUBLISHED OPINION

BOWMAN, J. — Dimitar K. Dermendziev appeals pro se the trial court’s 

order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging the Department of 

Corrections (DOC) subjected him to “sleep torture” by installing electromagnetic 

emitting devices in the walls of his prison cell. We dismiss the appeal for failure 

to comply with RAP 5.2(a).

FACTS

Dermendziev has been an inmate in DOC’s custody since April 2009.1 On 

April 15, 2019, Dermendziev filed a handwritten petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus in the Whatcom County Superior Court. The court denied the petition that 

same day.

 

1 A jury convicted Dermendziev of four counts of child molestation in the first degree, 

which this court affirmed in an unpublished opinion. State v. Dermendziev, noted at 155 Wn. 

App. 1037 (2010).
No. 81319-6-I/2

2

In his petition, Dermendziev alleged that DOC installed devices that emit 

electromagnetic radiation in the walls of his prison cell. Asserting that DOC was 

slowly putting him to death, Dermendziev complained of “sleep torture” or “sleep 

haras[s]ment” that caused him to suffer various medical ailments. He supported 

his petition with 101 pages of attachments. Among the attachments were 

documents from DOC indicating that it had investigated his allegations, found no 

improper behavior, and found no evidence of an electromagnetic emitting device 

imbedded in his cell and that medical staff found “no issues with [his] health.” 

The relief Dermendziev requested in his petition included an order for continuous 

monitoring of his cell by state and federal agencies, an evaluation by 

cardiologists and “sleep medicine experts,” an order allowing him to serve the 

remainder of his sentence in federal custody or at the Whatcom County Jail, and 

an order for a criminal investigation.

On August 13, 2019, Dermendziev appealed the superior court’s order 

directly to the Washington Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this 

court. 

ANALYSIS

Dermendziev argues that the superior court erred in denying his petition. 

But Dermendziev failed to timely appeal that order. RAP 5.2(a) generally 

requires an appellant to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of entry of the 

decision for review. Here, Dermendziev filed his notice of appeal on August 13, 

2019; nearly four months after the court denied his petition on April 15, 2019. 

Nor did Dermendziev ask us to enlarge the time to file his appeal and consider its
No. 81319-6-I/3

3

merits. See RAP 18.8. We hold pro se litigants to the same standard as 

attorneys. In re Estate of Little, 9 Wn. App. 2d 262, 274 n.4, 444 P.3d 23, review 

denied, 194 Wn.2d 1006, 451 P.3d 335 (2019). For these reasons, and because 

Dermendziev does not demonstrate an “extraordinary circumstance” where we 

must “prevent a gross miscarriage of justice” warranting review, we decline to 

consider the merits of Dermendziev’s appeal. RAP 18.8(b), (a). 

We dismiss the appeal as untimely under RAP 5.2(a), and affirm.2

WE CONCUR:

 

2 Dermendziev also argues that the superior court erred by denying his “Motion to Order 

Department of Corrections at UCC-SOU to Produce Undisputed Physical Evidence of 

Compliance with State & Federal Gov. Agencies Environmental Health & Safety Regulations, 

Statutory Criminal & Constitutional Laws, and Order Relief.” We decline to consider this 

argument because even if Dermendziev’s notice of appeal was timely, he did not designate this 

order for our review pursuant to RAP 5.3(a).