Case Name: Andre HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-17
Citations: 696 F. App'x 242
Docket Number: No. 16-35880
Parties: Andre HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
Andre HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35880
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 17, 2017
Andre Hoskins, Pro Se
Teal Luthy Miller, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee United States Government
Jeremy R. Larson, Esquire, Attorney, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Seattle, WA, Adrienne Grace McKelvey, Attorney, Foster Pepper PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Pacific Place
Jeremy R. Larson, Esquire, Attorney, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Madison Marquette
Peter J. Korneffel, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Bryan Cave LLP, Denver, CO, Alan S. Middleton, Attorney, Davis Wright Tre-.maine LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Qwest Communications International Inc., CenturyLink Inc
John M. Silk, Esquire, Attorney, Morgan E. Smith, Attorney, Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Safeco Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
Jessica Nadelman, Attorney, Seattle City Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee City of Seattle
Christopher Holm Howard, Esquire, Attorney, Averil Rothrock, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Port of Seattle
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
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.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 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 Hallett 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. 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.