MEMORANDUM ***

The only claims surviving on appeal are against the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and its judges (collectively “Federal Defendants”). 1 The district court dismissed these claims on the basis of sovereign immunity.

Federal Defendants have sovereign and judicial immunity. 2 See Block v. North Dakota, ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 287, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983) (“The basic rule of federal sovereign immunity is that the United States cannot be sued at all without the consent of Congress.”); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (finding that judges have judicial immunity and “are not hable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly”) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any waiver of immunity must be ‘unequivocally ex *792 pressed,’ and any limitations and conditions upon the waiver ‘must be strictly observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied.’” Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 707 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160-61, 101 S.Ct. 2698, 69 L.Ed.2d 548 (1981)). Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Federal Defendants waived either sovereign or judicial immunity, we do not have jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’ appeal.

DISMISSED.