MEMORANDUM ***

Allen Joseph Bassel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2006) (judicial immunity). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

To the extent that Bassel’s claims are based on the premise that the state court decisions were erroneous, the district court properly dismissed the claims as barred by the Roolcer-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (the Roolcer-Feldman doctrine bars “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”).

To the extent that Bassel’s claims are not barred under Roolcer-Feldman, defendants are immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against judicial officers for their judicial conduct “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Sad oski, 435 F.3d at 1079 (judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial conduct except when acting “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, 302 F.3d 928, 957 n. 27 (9th Cir. 2002) (“ ‘The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state ....’” (citation omitted)).

Bassel’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.