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 17 of 24 absent a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. See, e.g., Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609 (1999) ("[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are `shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."' (Quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982))). Items 3 and 5 fail to allege any constitutional violations whatsoever. Consequently, Cole's § 1983 claim is hereby dismissed. In sum, the County's motion to dismiss is granted as to Cole's § 1983 claim. The § 1983 claim is barred because it rests on events that occurred more than two years ago (and therefore falls outside the statute of limitations), and the remaining events (those that occurred within the limitations period) fail to demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred. C. 42 U.S.C. � 1985 Cole's § 1985 claim alleges that County officials were involved in a conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights. Cole does not specify which of his 17