NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN J. BOQUIST,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

PETER COURTNEY, Oregon State

Senate President, in his official capacity;

FLOYD PROZANSKI, Senator, in his

official capacity as Chairman of the Senate

Special Committee on Conduct; JAMES

MANNING, Senator, in his official

capacity as member of the Special Senate

Conduct Committee; DEXTER

JOHNSON, in his official capacity as

Legislative Counsel; JESSICA

KNIELING, in her official capacity as

interim Human Resources Director;

BRENDA KAY BAUMGART, in her

official capacity as contract investigators

to the Oregon State Senate; DARON

HILL, in his official Legislative

Administration capacity; MELISSA J.

HEALY, in her official capacity as

contract investigators to the Oregon State

Senate, and all in their official capacities in

the Legislative Branch of the State of

No. 20-35080

D.C. No. 6:19-cv-01163-MC

MEMORANDUM*

FILED

APR 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Oregon,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 6, 2021** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: W. FLETCHER, IKUTA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Brian J. Boquist appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing his complaint against the defendants, who are Oregon state senators,

senate aides, and contractors hired by the state senate. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 

The district court lacked jurisdiction over Boquist’s claims for declaratory

relief against defendants for violations of Section 26, Article I, Bill of Rights, of

the Oregon Constitution; Article IV, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution; and

other unspecified provisions of the Oregon Constitution. Such claims are barred

** We previously granted appellant’s motion to submit this case on the

briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

1

 In an opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum, see __ F.4th __

(9th Cir. 2022), we reverse the district court’s dismissal of Boquist’s First

Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Peter Courtney, Floyd Prozanski,

and James Manning.

2
by the Eleventh Amendment.2

 See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,

465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984). 

Boquist failed to state a claim for a violation of his rights under the Due

Process Clause. See Haggard v. Curry, 631 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir. 2010) (per

curiam). Boquist has not identified any right to be given advance notice of an

investigation into his conduct, and therefore Boquist’s claim that defendants

“conduct[ed] a secret investigation” of his conduct does not plausibly allege a

deprivation of a liberty interest. Cf. United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181,

189 (1977) (holding that grand jury witnesses have no due process right to be

informed that they are a target of the grand jury investigation). Boquist’s

allegation that defendants asked the governor to order the arrest of absent senators

does not raise a due process claim because Boquist was not arrested and so was not

deprived of any liberty interest. Finally, Boquist’s allegation that he tendered a

$3,500 check to pay a fine for his absence from the state senate does not state a due

process claim because the check was never cashed and was instead returned to

2

 To the extent Boquist claims that provisions of the Oregon Constitution

conflict with the U.S. Constitution, neither his complaint nor brief on appeal

distinctly identifies the specific provisions in conflict. Therefore, we do not

address these claims. See Ent. Rsch. Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122

F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997) (“We review only issues which are argued

specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

3
Boquist. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (holding that there is no

due process violation “until and unless [the state] . . . refuses to provide a suitable

postdeprivation remedy”).

Boquist also failed to state any substantive claims against non-legislator

defendants Dexter Johnson, Jessica Knieling, Daron Hill, Brenda Baumgart, and

Melissa Healy. Although Boquist alleges that those defendants advised the

legislator defendants to request Boquist’s arrest or restrict Boquist’s access to the

State Capitol, the complaint fails to raise a plausible inference that these nonlegislator defendants controlled or directed the legislators, or that the legislators

were merely a conduit for the will of the non-legislators. See Arnold v. Int’l Bus.

Mach. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1357 (9th Cir. 1981). Because the harm to Boquist

can “be traced more directly to an intervening actor” than to the non-legislator

defendants, Boquist failed to state any substantive claim against the non-legislator

defendants.3Stoot v. City of Everett, 582 F.3d 910, 926 (9th Cir. 2009).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Boquist

leave to amend, because Boquist does not identify what new facts he would plead

3

 Boquist’s argument that he stated a claim against the non-legislator

defendants because he sued them in their official capacities is unavailing. Even

where a plaintiff names a defendant in her official capacity, the plaintiff must still

establish that the defendant caused the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights. 

See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).

4
to cure the deficiencies in his complaint. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981,

991 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED IN PART.

5