Case Name: Fareed SEPEHRY-FARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of OREGON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-07
Citations: 670 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 14-17416
Parties: Fareed SEPEHRY-FARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of OREGON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
Fareed SEPEHRY-FARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of OREGON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-17416
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 7, 2016
Fareed Sepehry-Fard, Pro Se
Denise Gale Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision' without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fareed Sepehry-Fard appeals pro se from .the district court's judgment dismiss ing his action alleging federal and state law claims against the State of Oregon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal of an action as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Micomonaco v. Washington, 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sepehry-Fard's action against the State of Oregon on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court for damages or injunctive relief against a state or an arm of the state); see also Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing non-cognizable claims for retrospective relief, such as damages, from generally cognizable claims for prospective relief against state officials). In light of our disposition, we do not address the merits of Sepehry-Fard's claims.
Sepehry-Fard's contentions that the district court violated his right to due process are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.