matter jurisdiction is not an adjudication of the merits and therefore should be entered without prejudice. In re Hall, Bayoutree Assoc., Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir.1991); Frigard v. United States, 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir.1988). B. The district court identified several immunity grounds for dismissing the plaintiffs’ third and fourth claims that, if sound, would justify the dismissal of those claims with prejudice. We turn to those arguments. The district court did not err in dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs’ third and fourth claims for relief against the school district and defendants acting in their official capacity based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and immunity from punitive damages. See Belanger v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist. 963 F.2d 248, 251-54 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527 (9th
recognizing the irony that a state officials conduct may be considered  state action for fourteenth amendment purposes yet not for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding college school district immune from suit in federal court under eleventh amendment holding california school district a state agency for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment