NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 7 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD, No. 14-17416
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02444-EJD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF OREGON,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Fareed Sepehry-Fard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 14-17416