Murray

MEMORANDUM **

Blaine Murray appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his *641 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his prosecution in Idaho state court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review summary judgment de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Murray’s claims against the State of Idaho, the Idaho Department of Fish & Game, and Senior Conservation Officer Charlie Anderson, in his official capacity, because the claims are barred under the Eleventh Amendment. See Regents of the Univ. of Calif v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 , 117 S.Ct. 900 , 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997) (explaining Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to states and state agencies); Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir.2007) (explaining that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state officials in their official capacity).

To the extent that Murray asserted a constitutional claim against Anderson in his individual capacity stemming from allegations that Anderson gave false testimony, the district court…