[Reformatted, and the conventional section mark is herein represented
by the precentage sign, for FidoNet compatibility]
File: 1985CITE.ASC
                     Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights
                             42 USCS % 1985(c)
Related Citations
PART 1 - General Elements of Conspiracy
         Meeting of the minds, indifference, omission, failure to
         act to prevent, concerted acts, more than one actor,
PART 2 - Corporate entities
PART 3 - Municipal Liability
         Respondeat Superior, Policy or Custom
PART 1
General elements of Conspiracy
"Conspiracy" in context of this section pertaining to conspiracies to
interfere with civil rights means that coconspirators must have agree,
at least tacitly, to commit such acts which will deprive plaintiff of
equal protection of the law.
Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1977, 435 F.Supp. 136
That two persons pursue by their acts the same object often by the
same means, one performing one part of the act and the other another
part, so as to complete it with a view to the attaining of the object
they are pursuing, is sufficient to constitute a "conspiracy"
regardless of whether each conspirator knew of the details of the
conspiracy or of the exact part to be performed by the other
conspirators, or whether the details were completely worked out in
advance.
Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. D.C.Pa.1946, 5 F.R.D. 76
Conspiracy to deprive equal protection is prerequisite to claim under
this section providing cause of action for neglect to prevent such
conspiracy.
Sebastian v. U.S., C.A.8.(Ark.)1976, 531 F.2d 900, certiorari denied
97 S.Ct 153, 429 U.S. 856, 50 L.Ed.2d 133
Proof of conspiracy is essential element of claim under this section
prohibiting conspiracies to deny equal protection.
Smith v. Butler, D.C.Pa.1981, 507 F.Supp. 952
A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more individuals to
deprive a person of some protected right where one individual acts in
furtherance of objective of conspiracy, which causes actual injury to
a person or property or deprives person of exercising any right or
privilege as United States citizen.
Rios v. Navarro, S.D.Fla.1991, 766 F.Supp. 1158
"Conspiracy," for purposes of civil rights statute, requires
participation of more than one actor.
Irizarry v. Palm Springs General Hosp., S.D.Fla.1986, 657 F.Supp. 739
To prove civil conspiracy, there must be persuasive evidence that two
or more individuals knowingly engaged over period of time in common
purpose to accomplish unlawful objectives or to accomplish lawful end
by unlawful means.
Dreyer v. Jalet, D.C.Tex.1972, 349 F.Supp. 452, affirmed 479 F.2d. 1044
At its most basic level, action under this section require proof of
conspiracy, that is, there must at least be accusation that defendants
manifested specific intent to agree to participate in concerted effort
to deprive someone of his civil rights based on racially discriminatory
motive.
Morgan v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.,1982, 550 F.Supp. 465, affirmed
725 F.2d. 125, 233 U.S.App.D.C. 166
To prove existence of conspiracy under civil rights conspiracy
statute, plaintiff must allege and establish facts showing a meeting
of the minds.
Taliaferro v. Voth, D.Kan.1991, 744 F.Supp. 1326
Inmate who alleged no meeting of the minds of alleged conspirators did
not state % 1985(3) conspiracy claim.
McDowell v. Jones, C.A.8 (Mo.) 1993, 990 F.2d 433
A "civil conspiracy" is a combination of two or more persons acting in
concert to commit an unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by
unlawful means, the principal element of which is an agreement between
the parties to inflict a wrong against or injury upon another and an
overt act that results in damage.
Lenard v. Argento, C.A.7(Ill)1983, 699 F.2d 874, certiorari denied
104 S.Ct. 69, 464 U.S. 815, 78 L.Ed.2d. 84
A conspiracy under civil rights conspiracy statute [42 U.S.C.A. %
1985] may be implied from the circumstances; a plaintiff need not show
that agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act
was express.
Hunt v. Weatherbee, D.Mass.1986, 626 F.Supp. 1097
Conspiracy is essential element of a cause of action for damages for
conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.
U.S. ex rel. Simmons v. Zibilich, C.A.5(La.)1976, 542 F.2d 259.
A party who acquiesces in illegal behavior which could be regulated by
contract, either by not pressing for change in the contract or not
complaining about an apparent disregard of its provisions, has
impliedly entered into a conspiracy; if a party has the potential to
stop illegal activity but fails to act to do so, and sits idly by,
then that party may be said to have impliedly conspired in such
illegalities.
Dickerson v. U.S. Steel Corp., D.C.Pa.1977, 439 F.Supp. 55
[cont]
--- FMail/386 1.0g
(1:2629/124)
---------------