de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007). For the reasons stated by the district court in its order of March 9, 2006, we affirm the dismissal of Manriquez’s first through seventh claims. We review de novo the dismissal of a claim on statute-of-limitations grounds. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 378 (9th Cir.1998). As the district court concluded, Manriquez’s complaint, deemed filed on November 6, 2005, was untimely under the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1. He knew or had reason to know of the injuries that were the basis of his Eighth Amendment claim by the end of January 2003. See TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). He completed the inmate appeal process, and
holding that the limitations period for  1983 actions arising in ohio is the twoyear period found in ohio rev code  230510 and that the limitations period starts to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action  holding that  1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury holding that a federal cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is aware or should be aware of the existence of and source of the injury not when the potential claimant knows or should know that the injury constitutes a legal wrong holding that statute of limitations for malpractice begins to run when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the alleged malpractice holding that in an environmental contamination ease a cause of action accrues  when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of his or her cause of action and of the identity of a party or parties who may be responsible for the injury