Raymond J. Bazell v. the People of the State of California

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND J. BAZELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-56294
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02097-GHK-OP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Raymond J. Bazell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations in
connection with his trial for a violation of section 21453 of the California Vehicle
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-56294 2
Code. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Whitaker v. Garcetti,
486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007). We may affirm on any basis supported by the
record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.
2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Bazell’s § 1983 action was proper because Bazell’s claims
against the state of California are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“It is clear
. . . that in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or
departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh
Amendment.”).
Bazell’s request for judgment, filed on June 10, 2013, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --