
    Jojo EJONGA-DEOGRACIAS, AKA JoJo Ejonga, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-35512
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 21, 2017
    Jojo Ejonga-Deogracias, Pro Se
    Douglas W. Carr, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Corrections Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jojo Ejonga-Deogracias, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We vacate and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Ejonga-Deogracias’s deliberate indifference claim against the Washington Department of Corrections because this claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to state agencies, including the department of prisons). However, dismissal of the deliberate indifference claim without leave to amend was premature because it is not absolutely clear that the deficiencies in Ejonga-Deogracias’s complaint could not possibly be cured by amendment. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect ... a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend[.]”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to provide EjongarDeogracias an opportunity to file an amended complaint that names the correct defendants.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     