Dwane Lamar Hubbart, Doctor, Aventura, FL, pro se. v. David Armstrong Webber, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16308
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010. Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
361 Fed. Appx. 858
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Dwane Lamar Hubbart appeals pro se from the district court‘s judgment dismissing his
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 their 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
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.
Troy WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16308
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.* Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
361 Fed. Appx. 858
Troy Walker, Suisun City, CA, pro se. Duffy Carolan, II, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Marcia Beth Paul, Esquire, Davis Wright Tremaine, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Troy Walker appeals pro se from the district court‘s order granting summary judgment for defendants in his copyright action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Walker failed to show that his comic strip was substantially similar to defendants’ cartoon and thus, he failed to satisfy the extrinsic test for showing infringement. See id. at 1077 (explaining that the extrinsic test considers articulable similarities between characters and plot and that “[a] plaintiff who cannot satisfy the extrinsic test necessarily loses on summary judgment“) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we do not reach Walker‘s contentions regarding access and independent creation.
Walker‘s request to enter new evidence is denied. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1988) (“Papers not filed with the district court or admitted into evidence by that court are not part of the clerk‘s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal.“).
AFFIRMED.