Hubbart v. State of Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Dwane Lamar Hubbart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging injuries arising from a state court consent judgment entered in 1999. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissal on Eleventh Amendment and statute of limitations grounds. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the State of Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection, and the claims for money damages and retrospective declaratory relief against the state official defendants in them official capacities, as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.1999). Moreover, the district court properly dismissed all of the claims as barred by the statute of limitations under Hawaii law. See Haw.Rev. Stat. § 657-7 (2009) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 657-1(4) (2009) (six-year statute of limitations for “[pjersonal actions of any nature whatsoever not specifically covered by the laws of the State”).