Unpublished Disposition, 917 F.2d 566 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Norman E. Houlahan appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Houlahan's complaint alleged that a California superior court judge violated his right to due process, and sought an order nullifying the state court judgment and remanding for a new trial. Houlahan contends that the district court erred in setting aside a default judgment entered by the clerk, and finding that the state of California and its judicial officers are immune from suit in federal court. We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3217 (1990), and affirm.

The district court did not err in setting aside the default judgment because Houlahan's complaint was not properly served on the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) (2) (A) and 4(d) (6). Moreover, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint because (1) under the eleventh amendment the state of California is immune from suits brought in federal court regardless of the type of relief sought, see Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984), and (2) a federal district court has no jurisdiction "over challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional." District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983).

AFFIRMED.