With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Randolph, 497 F.Supp. 569, 570 (D.Mass.1980); Bell v. Brennan, 570 F.Supp. 1116 (E.D.Pa.1983). After considering the allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint liberally, as required by Rule 8(f), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., it is clear that they have not stated a claim under § 1981. The complaint fails to allege a single fact that could support plaintiffs’ allegation that Chiles’ actions were motivated by plaintiffs’ race. Consequently, this claim must be dismissed. Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.Proc. In addition to the reasons given above for why both plaintiffs’ federal claims should be dismissed, this court is constrained to conclude that Hollis’ federal claims should also be dismissed for lack of proximate cause. Arnold v. International Business Machines, 637 F.2d 1350,1354-55 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). As the Ninth Circuit in Arnold noted,

A: recognizing that a strong causal connection is required quotation omitted
B: holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury
C: holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a  1983  cause of action
D: holding under new york law in fact the failure to prove damages is  fatal to a plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action
C.