David Simmons v. Stephen Wallace
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
David Simmons appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the State of Alaska, two of its judges, and two of its prosecutors violated his constitutional rights by retrying him on new charges after the Alaska Court of Appeals invalidated a conviction arising from the same incident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Simmons’ claims against the State of Alaska under the Eleventh Amendment. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir.1989) (Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 action against a state).
The district court properly dismissed Simmons’ claims against the state court judges who participated in his retrial because they are entitled to absolute immunity. See Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that a judge is entitled to absolute immunity even if he takes an action that violates the Double Jeopardy Clause).