DETELIN DRAGANOV V. STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 13-35391 (9th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 21 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DETELIN DRAGANOV, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-35391 D.C. No.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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.