22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4db,MEMORANDUM Fareed Sepehry-Fard appeals pro se from .the district court’s judgment dismiss ing his action alleging federal and state law claims against the State of Oregon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal of an action as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Micomonaco v. Washington, 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Sepehry-Fard’s action against the State of Oregon on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court for damages or injunctive relief against a state or an arm of the state); see also Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing non-cognizable claims for retrospective relief, such as damages, from generally cognizable claims for prospective relief against state officials). In light of our disposition, we do not address the merits of Sepehry-Fard’s claims. Sepehry-Fard’s contentions that the district court violated his right to due process are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T50d,

MEMORANDUM

Fareed Sepehry-Fard appeals pro se from .the district court’s judgment dismiss ing his action alleging federal and state law claims against the State of Oregon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal of an action as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Micomonaco v. Washington, 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sepehry-Fard’s action against the State of Oregon on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court for damages or injunctive relief against a state or an arm of the state); see also Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing non-cognizable claims for retrospective relief, such as damages, from generally cognizable claims for prospective relief against state officials). In light of our disposition, we do not address the merits of Sepehry-Fard’s claims.

Sepehry-Fard’s contentions that the district court violated his right to due process are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.