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>). The district court properly dismissed the
holding that a judge was not entitled to absolute immunity for firing an employee holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding that a judge is entitled to absolute immunity even if he takes an action that violates the double jeopardy clause holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity