Connell

MEMORANDUM **

' Michael Connell, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his civil action alleging that the United States improperly garnished an insurance settlement to pay for the costs of his incarceration. We agree with the district court that the settlement was not exempt from garnishment, and accordingly, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

We reject the Government’s contention that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Connell’s assertion of constitutional violations is sufficient to confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . See Clinton v. Babbitt, 180 F.3d 1081, 1086-87 (9th Cir.1999) (claim of Fifth Amendment violation gives rise to federal question jurisdiction). Moreover, the sovereign immunity of the United States is not implicated because Connell seeks only restitution of the garnished monies, rather than damages. See Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 893-95 , 108 S.Ct. 2722 , 101 L.Ed.2d 749 (1988); Marshall Leasing, Inc. v. United States, 893 F.2d 1096, 1098-99 (9th Cir.1990). Finally, the Government waived its argument that Connell’s action is barred by the six-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2401…