Opinion
Civil No. 2:02-CV-00979
May 19, 2004
SCOTT A. HAGEN, D. ZACHARY WISEMAN, RAY QUINNEY NEBEKER, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant Utah Transit Authority
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE
This case came before the Court for hearing on February 18, 2004. At issue were defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion to strike. Plaintiff was represented by Jay L. Kessler, Esq. and defendants were represented by Scott A. Hagen, Esq. Prior to the hearing, the Court read the legal memoranda and exhibits submitted by the parties in support of their respective positions. After hearing oral argument, and deeming itself fully advised on the applicable facts and law, the Court decides the motions as follows:
Plaintiff's motion to strike:
Plaintiff's motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to paragraph 4 and the first sentence of paragraph 5 of the Declaration of Betty Shirley, and denied as to the remainder of the Shirley Declaration and as to the Declaration of Clyde Palmer.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment:
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety for the reasons stated in defendants' legal memoranda and for the reasons stated by the Court at the hearing. Each claim is addressed below.
1. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff's claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is presumably based on Title VI thereof, is dismissed because plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination. The court holds that a mere delay of up to 20 minutes does not constitute a denial of federally funded services, and that differential treatment between Mr. Goodman and two Caucasian passengers does not, without more, give rise to an inference of racial discrimination. Accordingly, plaintiff's Title VI claim is dismissed with prejudice.
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff has conceded that his claim based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is preempted by his § 1983 claim. Accordingly, the § 1981 claim is dismissed with prejudice.
3. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's § 1983 claim fails against Utah Transit Authority because there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983 and plaintiff has failed to present evidence of a policy or entrenched custom or practice of discrimination against African Americans. Although plaintiff presented newspaper articles concerning allegations of Hispanic discrimination, those articles were inadmissible hearsay and contained no evidence of any specific claim or specific evidence, and did not reference discrimination against African American passengers. Plaintiff's § 1983 claim fails against Mr. Kuahulu individually for the same reasons as the Title VI claim. Accordingly, plaintiff's § 1983 claim is dismissed with prejudice.
4. Direct Claim Based on Constitutional Amendments. Plaintiff's allegations concerning various amendments to the United States Constitution do not state a claim. A direct claim under the Constitution is preempted by a claim under § 1983, and the amendments plaintiff alleged appear to have nothing to do with discrimination. Accordingly, plaintiff's claim based on these amendments is dismissed with prejudice.
5. Utah Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff's claim based on the Utah Civil Rights Act fails because he presented no evidence of racial discrimination in the denial of any services. Accordingly, that claim is also dismissed with prejudice.