Fareed Sepehry-Fard v. State of Oregon

670 F. App'x 576
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 7, 2016
Docket14-17416
StatusUnpublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 576 (Fareed Sepehry-Fard v. State of Oregon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fareed Sepehry-Fard v. State of Oregon, 670 F. App'x 576 (9th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Fareed Sepehry-Fard appeals pro se from .the district court’s judgment dismiss *577 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Micomonaco v. Washington
45 F.3d 316 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Porter v. Jones
319 F.3d 483 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
670 F. App'x 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fareed-sepehry-fard-v-state-of-oregon-ca9-2016.