2006-01-25_Dan_Cole_v._County_of_Hawaii_-_Order_Granting_Defendants_Motions_to_Dismiss

Home

Case 1:05-cv-00325-JMS-BMK Document 35 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 14 of 24 The court addresses Cole's conspiracy claims below, in the section discussing 42 U.S.C. § 1985. As to items one through five, none states a claim for relief pursuant to § 1981 because Cole does not allege that County officials took any action against him based on his race. In other words, Cole's Second Amended Complaint contains no allegations of any kind suggesting that, since May 17, 2003, County officials have treated Cole differently because of his race.' Consequently, Cole's § 1981 claims are hereby dismissed. In sum, the County's motion to dismiss is granted as to Cole's § 1981 claim. The § 1981 claim is barred either because: (1) it is based on events that occurred more than two years ago; or (2) it fails to allege racial discrimination, which is a required element of a § 1981 claim. b. 42 U.S.C. S 1983 the Eleventh Amendment. Because this particular allegation concerns the State and not the County, the court will not address this particular event. s Cole's Second Amended Complaint contains two allegations of racial discrimination: first, Cole contends that, in 2001, Mr. Nash ordered the contractor to remove debris from the property of a Mr. Yoza, but refused to order the contractor to remove debris from Cole's property, and that"the actions of Mr. Nash provide prima facie evidence of the racial bias against the Plaintiff'; second, Cole asserts that"[t]he actions of the Defendants show a clear and definable pattern of bias against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff understands the bias to be racially motivated as a cohort analysis would identify the Plaintiff to be of a different cognizable racial group than the majority of the Defendants who were acting under the color of statute, and the well documented history in the State of Hawaii of bias against the cognizable group to which the Plaintiff is a member[.]" Second Amended Complaint at 6-7, 27-28. Cole does not tie this second allegation to any specific time period, and nothing in his Second Amended Complaint suggests that any racial discrimination occurred within the statutory period. 14