Andre Hoskins v. United States Government;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRE HOSKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35880
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01055-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Andre Hoskins appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Lukovsky
v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Hoskins’ request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
FILED
AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-35880
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hoskins’ action as time-barred,
because Hoskins filed this action years after the applicable statute of limitations
had run. See 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) (three year statute of limitations for copyright
infringement claims); Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2001)
(four year statute of limitations for civil Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
Organization claims); see also Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2) (three year statute
of limitations for personal injury claims); Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc.,
293 F.3d 1133, 1137 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (for claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, courts apply the statute of limitations for the most analogous state
law); McDougal v. County of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1991) (§
1983 and § 1985 claims are governed by forum state’s statute of limitations for
personal injury actions).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hoskins’ motion to
compel interrogatories. See Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)
(setting forth standard of review and describing trial court’s broad discretion to
deny discovery).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-35880
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --