Mirch

MEMORANDUM **

Kevin J. Mirch appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his action brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and various state laws. Mirch also appeals the order imposing sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal. Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.2007). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s sanction order. Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the federal claims for damages and the state law claims against defendants State Bar, Bare, and Christensen because they are immune under the Eleventh Amendment. See Ginter v. State Bar of Nevada, 625 F.2d 829, 830 (9th Cir.1980) (“[T]he Nevada State Bar Association, as an arm of the state, is not subject to suit under the Eleventh Amendment.”); see also Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir.1992) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to employees of the State Bar acting in their official capacities as agents of the state). Moreover, “the…