
    Dwane Lamar HUBBART, Doctor, DBA St. Mary’s School of Medicine of the South Pacific, DBA St. Mary’s Medical Sciences Program, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of HAWAII OFFICE OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-16211.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
    Dwane Lamar Hubbart, Doctor, Aventu-ra, FL, pro se.
    David Armstrong Webber, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Hubbart’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   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”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hubbart’s motion for reconsideration because Hubbart did not identify any new evidence, change in law, clear error, or manifest injustice. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (reviewing district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion and setting forth requirements for reconsideration).

Hubbart’s motion for leave to file a substituted initial brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the substituted initial brief received on November 10, 2008.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     