MEMORANDUM **

Michael J. O’Connell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismiss *966 ing his qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed O’Connell’s action because the Regents of the University of California are a state entity and the False Claims Act does not provide a private right of action against state entities. See Donald v. Univ. of Cal. Bd. of Regents, 329 F.3d 1040, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Because a state entity is not identified as a ‘person’ for purposes of § 3729, the relators can claim no statutory basis under § 3730(b)(1) to bring suit against the Regents.”); see also Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787-88, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000) (“We hold that a private individual has standing to bring suit in federal court on 'behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, but that the False Claims Act does not subject a State (or state agency) to liability in such actions.”).

Contrary to O’Connell’s contention, the district court did not err in dismissing O’Connell’s action prior to the issuance of a summons. See Franklin v. Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir. 1981).

AFFIRMED.