Dimitar K. Dermendziev V. Jack Warner

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
DIMITAR K. DERMENDZIEV,
Appellant,
v.
JACK WARNER,
Respondent.
No. 81319-6-I
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BOWMAN, J. — Dimitar K. Dermendziev appeals pro se the trial court’s
order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging the Department of
Corrections (DOC) subjected him to “sleep torture” by installing electromagnetic
emitting devices in the walls of his prison cell. We dismiss the appeal for failure
to comply with RAP 5.2(a).
FACTS
Dermendziev has been an inmate in DOC’s custody since April 2009.1 On
April 15, 2019, Dermendziev filed a handwritten petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in the Whatcom County Superior Court. The court denied the petition that
same day.
1 A jury convicted Dermendziev of four counts of child molestation in the first degree,
which this court affirmed in an unpublished opinion. State v. Dermendziev, noted at 155 Wn.
App. 1037 (2010).

No. 81319-6-I/2
2
In his petition, Dermendziev alleged that DOC installed devices that emit
electromagnetic radiation in the walls of his prison cell. Asserting that DOC was
slowly putting him to death, Dermendziev complained of “sleep torture” or “sleep
haras[s]ment” that caused him to suffer various medical ailments. He supported
his petition with 101 pages of attachments. Among the attachments were
documents from DOC indicating that it had investigated his allegations, found no
improper behavior, and found no evidence of an electromagnetic emitting device
imbedded in his cell and that medical staff found “no issues with [his] health.”
The relief Dermendziev requested in his petition included an order for continuous
monitoring of his cell by state and federal agencies, an evaluation by
cardiologists and “sleep medicine experts,” an order allowing him to serve the
remainder of his sentence in federal custody or at the Whatcom County Jail, and
an order for a criminal investigation.
On August 13, 2019, Dermendziev appealed the superior court’s order
directly to the Washington Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this
court.
ANALYSIS
Dermendziev argues that the superior court erred in denying his petition.
But Dermendziev failed to timely appeal that order. RAP 5.2(a) generally
requires an appellant to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of entry of the
decision for review. Here, Dermendziev filed his notice of appeal on August 13,
2019; nearly four months after the court denied his petition on April 15, 2019.
Nor did Dermendziev ask us to enlarge the time to file his appeal and consider its

No. 81319-6-I/3
3
merits. See RAP 18.8. We hold pro se litigants to the same standard as
attorneys. In re Estate of Little, 9 Wn. App. 2d 262, 274 n.4, 444 P.3d 23, review
denied, 194 Wn.2d 1006, 451 P.3d 335 (2019). For these reasons, and because
Dermendziev does not demonstrate an “extraordinary circumstance” where we
must “prevent a gross miscarriage of justice” warranting review, we decline to
consider the merits of Dermendziev’s appeal. RAP 18.8(b), (a).
We dismiss the appeal as untimely under RAP 5.2(a), and affirm.2
WE CONCUR:
2 Dermendziev also argues that the superior court erred by denying his “Motion to Order
Department of Corrections at UCC-SOU to Produce Undisputed Physical Evidence of
Compliance with State & Federal Gov. Agencies Environmental Health & Safety Regulations,
Statutory Criminal & Constitutional Laws, and Order Relief.” We decline to consider this
argument because even if Dermendziev’s notice of appeal was timely, he did not designate this
order for our review pursuant to RAP 5.3(a).