Walker

MEMORANDUM **

G. Daniel Walker appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his second amended complaint alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and civil rights claims against prison officials and state agencies in California and Illinois. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim under the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court correctly found that Walker’s claims against the California Department of Corrections, the Illinois Department of Corrections, the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, and the Kern County Superior Court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 , 104 S.Ct. 900 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); see also Bair v. Krug, 853 F.2d 672, 674-75 (9th Cir.1988) (RICO does not override a state’s sovereign im *806 munity); Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir.1987) (concluding that Eleventh…