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 16 of 24 2003 (as set forth above).4 Items 1 through 5, above, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted insofar as none of the items alleges a cognizable constitutional violation. Item#1 alleges that Cole's property was injured in 2001 and that he has not received an adequate post-deprivation remedy for that injury, but this claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Item#2, read liberally, alleges that the County did not follow through on Cole's complaints of fraud and illegal dumping; nevertheless, even if Cole's allegations are correct, the court will not interfere with the County's prosecutorial decision. See, e.g., United States v. Banuelos-Rodriguez, 215 F.3d 969, 976 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Courts generally have no place interfering with a prosecutor's discretion regarding whom to prosecute, what charges to file, and whether to engage in plea negotiations."); cf.. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 515 (1978) ("An agency official, like a prosecutor, may have broad discretion in deciding whether a proceeding should be brought and what sanctions should be sought."). Item #4 alleges that the County Police Department did not investigate Cole's complaint. Just as prosecutors have broad discretion in determining whom to prosecute, a police officer has broad discretion in conducting her or his investigation and will be immune from suit 4 The court will discuss the conspiracy claim (item #6) below in the section on 42 U.S.C. § 1985. 16