DocketNumber: No. 532023
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11158, 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 163
Judges: HURLEY, J.
Filed Date: 9/27/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
By a ten-count second revised complaint filed with the court on March 20, 1995, the plaintiff, Kelah N. Lyons (Lyons) seeks compensatory and punitive damages as a result of an assault by the defendants, Nicholas J. Conti, Jr. (Conti) and Sean L. Henessy (Henessy). According to the complaint, on July 13, 1994, Lyons was beaten by the defendants. While allegedly beating Lyons, the defendants uttered racial epithets. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a member of the black race while the defendants are members of the white race.
Count six of the complaint alleges that Henessy's actions constitute a violation of his civil rights pursuant to
By a motion filed with the court on May 11, 1995, Henessy moves to strike counts six, eight, and ten. Henessy asserts that counts six fails to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted because there is no cause of action for a racially motivated assault under
DISCUSSION
Under section 152 of the Practice Book, a motion to strike is proper and permissible "[w]henever any party wishes to contest (1) the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . or of any one or more counts thereof, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. . . ." Practice Book § 152(1). In pleading a case, "[i]t is incumbent on a plaintiff to allege some recognizable cause of action in his complaint." Weiss v. Wiederlight,
When ruling on a motion to strike, "[a] trial court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint."Liljedahl Bros., Inc. v. Grigsby,
I. Count six
(a) All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceeding for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
This post Civil War statute is concerned primarily with the CT Page 11161 right to contract, and has been used extensively in the area of employments contracts. The plaintiff, relying on Mahone v.Waddle,
The court has carefully reviewed the federal court decisions regarding
The word "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property" (emphasis supplied) . . . suggest a concern with relations between the individual and the state, not between two individuals. The state, not the individual, is the sole source of law, and it is only the state acting through its agents, not the private individual, which is capable of denying to blacks the full and equal benefit of the law. Thus, while private discriminations may be implicated by the contract clause of section 1981, the concept of state action is implicit in the equal benefit clause. The like punishment clause may be read in the same way.
Id. 1059 quoting Mahone v. Waddle,
Because this assault, even if racially motivated, took CT Page 11162 place between private individuals, the plaintiff can not state a cause of action under
II. Count 8
[i]f two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire . . . for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws . . . in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
"To state a cause of action under § 1985(3) a plaintiff must allege (1) conspiracy (2) for the purpose of depriving a person . . . of the equal protection of the laws, or the equal privileges and immunities under the laws; (3) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) an injury to the plaintiff's person or property, or a deprivation of right or privilege of a citizen of the United States." Spencer v.Casavilla, supra,
In this case, the plaintiff has alleged that "the Defendant, [Henessy] acted in concert with the Defendant [Conti] and in furtherance of a conspiracy to violate the rights of the Plaintiff; specifically, the right to freely associate, the right to freely travel, in violation of both the State and Federal Constitutions, and section
Even viewing the complaint in a light most favorable to the pleading party, the plaintiff in this case has merely CT Page 11163 stated legal conclusions of conspiracy by the defendants to deprive the plaintiff of his right to travel and associate. The plaintiff needs to plead more specific facts that would support his cause of action. See, Spencer v. Casavilla,
III. Count 10
Since a claim under
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, the defendant's motion to strike counts six, eight, and ten is granted.