Cdcr

MEMORANDUM

Zane Hubbard, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hubbard’s claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Pleasant Valley State Prison, and Wasco State Prison as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Krainski v. Nev. ex. rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir.2010) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies[.]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir.2009) (applying bar to suit against CDCR); Allison v. Cal. Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir.1969) (applying bar…