*1 Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Renee Stephens appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim and a violation of 18 U.S.C. *2 § 1028. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Stephens’ action against the State of Oregon on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Krainski v. Nev. ex. rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ. , 616 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2010) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State, its agencies, and state officials sued in their official capacities).
We reject as without merit Stephens’ contention that the district court should have construed his complaint as requesting injunctive relief.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-35456
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).