Misiak
Misiak v. Washington
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Washington state prisoner Mark A. Misiak appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants conspired to violate his civil rights dining his criminal trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and *994 summary judgment. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claim against his former defense attorneys, Bernstein and Kimberley, because Misiak’s conelusory allegation that they conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights is insufficient to state a claim cognizable under section 1983. See Radcliffe v. Rainbow Constr. Co, 254 F.3d 772 , 783-84 (9th Cir.2001).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Whatcom County because Whatcom County has no authority over the superior court. See Wash. Const. art. IV, §§ 1,6; City of Spokan v. Marquette, 146 Wash.2d 124, 135 , 43 P.3d 502 (2002) (en banc) (superior courts of Washington exist as an arm of the state judiciary).