Curt Wilson v. Liz Ayers
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Curt Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection violations arising from the denial of his workers’ compensation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s claims against defendant Richins, a Nevada Department of Administration Appeals Officer, in her official and individual capacities. See Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir.2007) (Eleventh Amendment bars damages actions against state officials in their official capacity); Romano, 169 F.3d at 1186 (absolute immunity extends to state officials, including those sued in their individual capacity, “when they preside over hearings ... or otherwise perform functions analogous to judges”).
The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s due process claims because Wilson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted in a “conscience shocking” manner, or that Wilson did not receive an adequate opportunity to be heard. See Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 998 (9th…