Heslip

MEMORANDUM **

Edsel B. Heslip appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his civil *584 rights action alleging unreasonable seizure of his person, violation of equal protection, and use of excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Squaw Valley Dev. Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 943 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Heslip’s action arises from a traffic stop during which two state troopers, under the mistaken belief that there was a felony-warrant for Heslip’s arrest, handcuffed and placed him in a state trooper vehicle. Upon learning that there was no warrant, the state troopers released Heslip. The incident lasted approximately twenty minutes.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the State of Washington and the state troopers in their official capacity based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 918-19 (9th Cir. 1986). The district court also properly granted the individual defendants summary judgment. The state troopers were entitled to qualified immunity for the unreasonable seizure claim because they relied on information from a communications officer that there was a…