Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Page 677.
Tyrone Duff, Bellingham, WA, pro se.
Joseph L. Ward, AGNV--Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Louis F. Holland,
Esq., Carson City, NV, Gordon & Rees LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Joel B. Barber, Esq., Steven Klearman, Esq., Barber, Klearman & Associates, Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk, Balkenbush & Eisinger, A Professional Corporation Law Offices, Melanie Foster, Deputy District Attorney, Albert F. Pagni, Esq., Brian Irvine, Esq., Jones Vargas, Kevin J. Mirch, Esq., Mirch & Mirch, David R. Grundy, Esq., Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg, A Professional Corporation, Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
William Henry Foster, Reno, NV, pro se.
Yolanda Foster, Reno, NV, pro se.
Janice M. Peck, Reno, NV, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-00059-LRH.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Tyrone Duff appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his civil rights action alleging a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights in state divorce and child custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1442 (9th Cir.1989) (failure to state a claim), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Duff's claims against the Second Judicial District Court as barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1164. The district court properly dismissed Duff's claims against a state court judge and individual state attorneys based on judicial and prosecutorial immunity, see Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986), and properly dismissed his claims against the remaining state defendants as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Thompson, 885 F.2d at 1442-43.
The district court properly dismissed Duff's claims against the remaining defendants as time-barred. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam); Nev.Rev.Stat. 11.190(4)(e) (two-year limitations period for personal injury claims).
Contrary to Duff's contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss. See Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam).
Duff's remaining contentions are not persuasive.
Duff's motion to strike is denied.
AFFIRMED.