Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:05-cv-00325-JMS-BMK Document 35 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 9 of 24 <br /> showing of a direct connection between the municipality's actions and the alleged <br /> discrimination is insufficient to state a claim under §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3) or <br /> 2000e."); Luke v. Abbott, 954 F.Supp. 202, 202 n.I (C.D. Cal. 1997) ("The Monell <br /> municipal liability doctrine not only applies to § 1983 cases, but also applies to <br /> conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986."). Cole has not alleged <br /> that the County has any such policy or custom; based on this reason alone, the <br /> court could dismiss Cole's Second Amended Complaint. <br /> If this were the only deficiency in Mr. Cole's Second Amended <br /> Complaint, the court would grant Cole leave to amend one more time. The court <br /> concludes that granting Cole leave to amend would be futile, however, insofar as <br /> his claims for relief are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Each of <br /> Cole's claims for relief-- based on §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and the False <br /> Claims Act -- is addressed in turn. <br /> a. 42 U.S.C. � 1981 <br /> The County's motion to dismiss is granted as to Cole's § 1981 claim. <br /> The § 1981 claim is barred because it rests on events that occurred more than two <br /> years ago, and therefore falls outside the statute of limitations; to the extent that <br /> Cole discusses events that occurred within the limitations period, he fails to allege <br /> racial discrimination, which is a required element of a § 1981 claim. <br /> 9 <br />