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 8 of 24 The State has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to Mr. Cole's §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, or 1986 claims; similarly, Congress has not abrogated Hawaii's sovereign immunity with respect to claims for relief brought pursuant to these four statutes. Therefore, the State is entitled to a dismissal, with prejudice, of Cole's claims against it. 2. Cole's claims against the County will be dismissed because they are barred by Monell and because they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations Cole alleges that the County violated his constitutional rights through a series of actions beginning in 2001 and continuing through May 10, 2005. Cole did not bring a claim for relief against any individual County officials, however, nor does he contend that "the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers." Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). The County cannot be held liable under §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, or 1986 simply on the theory of respondeat superior; instead, Mr. Cole must demonstrate a direct connection between a County policy or custom and the harm suffered. See id.; see also Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) ("The general assertion that a municipality gives monetary support or intervenes in the operations of a separate educational institution with no 8