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 4 of 24 `inartful pleading' of pro se litigants." (Citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam).)). B. Even with a liberal construction, Cole's pleadings fail to state a claim upon which relief can be rg anted Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) allows the Defendants to file a motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]" After analyzing each of Cole's claims as set forth in his Second Amended Complaint, this court concludes that Cole has failed to state a claim upon which this court can grant relief. Cole alleges that the State and County violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986 by denying him his right to procedural due process; by conspiring against him to deprive him of his right to procedural due process; by discriminating against him on the basis of race; and by denying him equal protection of the laws. Cole also attempts to set forth a claim pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729. As discussed below, Cole's claims against the State are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Cole's claims against the County are likewise dismissed based on the applicable statutes of limitations and on Cole's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Finally, Cole's 4