(citing Wilson and selecting the two-year as opposed to six-year limitations period for § 1983 claims). The parties in Rhodes then agreed that the same limitations period applied in the section 1981 context. Defendants urge this court to continue applying Minnesota’s two-year statute of limitations to section 1981 claims. In considering this issue, however, the court determines that the courts in Rice and Rhodes were applying the two-year statute of limitations to the plaintiffs’ 1981 claims because that was the limitation period used in 1983 actions at the time of those decisions. Owens and subsequent court decisions support the position that this court should apply the six-year statute of limitations period to the section 1981 claim. See Owens, 488 U.S. at 243, 109 S.Ct. at 578 (<HOLDING>); Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72
recognizing federal policy in favor of ease and predictability when applying the appropriate personal injury limitations statute and selecting the general or residual personal injury statute for section1983 claims holding that if state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions the general or residual statute for personal injury actions should be used for 1983 actions holding that federal courts apply the forum states personal injury statute of limitations for section 1983 claims holding that warranty actions for personal injury damages or tortious injury to personal property are governed by general nonucc limitations periods holding that the statute of limitations for  1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims