42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires an underlying constitutional violation.

Stengle v. Office of Dispute Resolution · filed 2009-04-27

As we have explained above, Plaintiffs conspiracy claim is made pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, there must be an underlying constitutional violation in order for the PDE Defendants to be held liable for conspiracy. Since we have concluded that there was no violation of Plaintiffs Free Speech rights, PDE Defendants cannot be held liable for conspiracy to violate same.

Section 1983 permits liability for a civil rights deprivation through a conspiracy.

Simpson v. Weeks · filed 1977-02-28

It is well established that the doctrine of civil conspiracy extends liability for a deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim fails when the alleged conspiracy caused no deprivation of a constitutional right.

Bryant v. City of Cayce · filed 2009-05-08

Here, the facts do not establish that Brakefield deprived Bryant of any constitutional rights. Consequently, we conclude that Brakefield is entitled to summary judgment on Bryant’s conspiracy claim.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts supporting an inference that the defendant and other officers had an understanding to violate the plaintiff's rights.

Jack Dale Ruggles, Jr. Michael Caldwell v. State of Nevada Nevada Highway Patrol James Mercer · filed 1997-08-27

Because appellants have alleged no facts from which it can be inferred that there was an understanding between Mercer and the other officers to commit any civil rights violations, summary judgment was properly granted as to this claim.

Section 1983 conspiracy claims require an underlying constitutional violation.

Grider v. City of Auburn · filed 2009-06-18

In order to establish a conspiracy under § 1983, the Griders must demonstrate an underlying constitutional violation.

Section 1983 requires a prisoner alleging a conspiracy to show an agreement to deprive him of a constitutional right under color of law.

Burgos v. Canino · filed 2009-07-20

In order to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy under § 1983, the “prisoner has to show, inter alia, that the conspirators reached an agreement to deprive him of a constitutional right under color of law.”

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an actual violation of a protected right and concerted action with specific intent to violate that right.

Woods v. Grant · filed 2009-10-23

For a conspiracy claim, there must be evidence of (1) an actual violation of a right protected under § 1983 and (2) actions taken in concert by defendants with the specific intent to violate that right. ... As discussed above, plaintiffs constitutional rights have not been violated. Therefore, his conspiracy claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fails.

A plaintiff cannot obtain summary judgment on a Section 1983 conspiracy claim without establishing entitlement to judgment on an underlying constitutional claim.

Banks v. Gallagher · filed 2009-11-17

Because Kraft cannot demonstrate that summary judgment is appropriate as to any of the underlying constitutional claims, it would be also inappropriate to grant summary judgment on the § 1983 conspiracy claims.

A section 1983 conspiracy claim cannot survive summary judgment without evidence of an agreement to act unlawfully.

Sulehria v. City of New York · filed 2009-11-23

Because the facts — resolving all ambiguities and drawing all factual inferences in favor of Sulehria pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 56 — do not support a claim for conspiracy pursuant to section 1983 or section 1985, defendants’ motion for summary judgment on any conspiracy claim is granted.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires sufficient evidence that the defendants agreed to deprive the plaintiff of a constitutional right.

Burgos v. Canino · filed 2009-12-23

The District Court properly entered judgment in favor of the defendants on Burgos’s claim of a conspiracy under § 1983, too. In response to defendants’ evidence that they did not agree to deprive him of a constitutional right, Burgos did not offer sufficient evidence of an agreement.

Section 1983 conspiracy requires an agreement to inflict an unconstitutional injury and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement causing damages.

Williams v. County of Nassau · filed 2010-01-22

To establish a claim for conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Williams must demonstrate the following: “(1) an agreement between two or more state actors or between a state actor and a private entity; (2) to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury; and (3) an overt act done in furtherance of that goal causing damages.”

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement and an overt act to cause unconstitutional injury; it fails when no constitutional right was violated.

Jackler v. Byrne · filed 2010-02-11

To prove a Section 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) an agreement between two or more state actors or between a state actor and a private entity; (2) to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury; and (3) an overt act done in furtherance of that goal causing damages.” ... The conspiracy claim must therefore also be dismissed.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires an underlying deprivation of a constitutional right; conspiracy alone is not an independent basis for liability.

Santana v. Cook County Board of Review · filed 2010-03-30

Such a Section 1983 conspiracy claim does not provide an “independent basis of liability”—it must rather be predicated on the deprivation of a constitutional right (Smith v. Gomez, 550 F.3d 613, 617 (7th Cir.2008); Cefalu v. Village of Elk Grove, 211 F.3d 416, 423 (7th Cir.2000)).

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires specific facts showing agreement and concerted action among the defendants.

Rocky Mountain Rogues, Inc. v. Town of Alpine · filed 2010-04-19

Summary judgment in favor of the Alpine Defendants is appropriate on the Bull Moose’s § 1983 conspiracy claim, because the Bull Moose does not present specific facts demonstrating agreement and concerted action by the Alpine Defendants.

A section 1983 conspiracy claim requires evidence that the defendants acted in concert to commit an unlawful act.

Dice v. Johnson · filed 2010-05-03

To make a conspiracy claim under section 1983 a plaintiff must additionally establish the elements of a civil conspiracy. ... We agree with Fisch and Marinkov that they did not conspire with anyone, either on the federal or state-law claim, because there is no evidence they acted in concert with anyone to do an unlawful act, a requirement of both the federal and state-law claims.

A conspiracy under § 1983 requires an agreement between at least two people to deprive someone of a constitutional right under color of law.

Woods v. Grant · filed 2010-05-21

The District Court also properly entered judgment in favor of the Defendants on Woods’ claim of a conspiracy under § 1983. In order to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy under § 1983, “a plaintiff must show that two or more conspirators reached an agreement to deprive him or her of a constitutional right under color of law.” Parkway Garage, Inc. v. City of Phila., 5 F.3d 685, 700 (3d Cir. 1993). We agree with the District Court that Woods failed to present any evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

Section 1983 requires evidence of an agreement to deny constitutional rights to sustain a conspiracy claim; unsupported allegations are insufficient.

Miskovitch v. Hostoffer · filed 2010-06-15

At a minimum, absent some modicum of proof which tends to reveal the existence of an agreement which is designed to deny the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff, he cannot maintain his conspiracy claim. In sum, Plaintiffs allegations, standing alone, are patently insufficient for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in his favor.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an actual deprivation of a constitutional right.

Blair v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services · filed 2010-06-22

Because Plaintiff has not established that Defendants violated a constitutional right, he cannot prevail on a civil conspiracy claim.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim fails without an underlying constitutional violation.

Tuvalu v. Woodford · filed 2010-07-30

Tuvalu’s conspiracy claim fails because he did not establish an underlying constitutional violation.

Section 1983 conspiracy claims require specific facts showing an agreement and concerted action among the defendants; vague allegations are insufficient.

Brooks v. Gaenzle · filed 2010-08-10

In this case, regardless of whether Mr. Brooks properly alleged a violation under § 1983, rather than § 1985, we agree with the district court that his vague claim in his complaint of an alleged conspiracy does not raise a triable issue of fact the deputies participated in a conspiracy.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires evidence that the defendants agreed to violate the plaintiff’s rights.

Barnes v. Zaccari · filed 2010-09-03

To establish a conspiracy under § 1983, the plaintiff must show, among other things, that the defendants “reached an understanding to violate [the plaintiffs] rights.”

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires an underlying violation of a federally protected right.

Schlager v. Beard · filed 2010-10-28

Schlager‟s conspiracy claim also lacks a legal basis. Since Schlager cannot establish any violation of his constitutional rights, it follows that he cannot establish a conspiracy to violate those rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy requires an agreement to deprive the plaintiff of constitutional rights and willful joint action with the state or its agents.

Cooney v. Casady · filed 2010-10-28

To establish a § 1983 conspiracy, plaintiff must prove that: “(1) a state official and private individual(s) reached an understanding to deprive the plaintiff of [her] constitutional rights, ... and (2) those individual(s) were willful participants in joint activity with the State or its agents.”

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires evidence of an agreement to pursue an unlawful objective.

Hamilton v. City of Romulus · filed 2010-11-12

The trial court did not misapply conspiracy law and there is no evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found a § 1983 conspiracy or a state-law conspiracy by the Appellees.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires an underlying § 1983 claim.

Seabourn v. Independent School District No. I-300 · filed 2010-12-21

Finally, because Plaintiff has not established an underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, there can be no claim for conspiracy to violate her constitutional rights under § 1983.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim does not require class-based discrimination, but it does require evidence of an agreement to act unlawfully.

Hensley v. Gassman · filed 2011-01-14

Although the Deputy Defendants were incorrect in asserting that § 1983 conspiracy claims are limited to equal protection actions, there does not appear to be any issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ as to whether a conspiracy occurred. There is no evidence that there was an agreement for unlawful action but instead Gassman and the Deputy Defendants thought, albeit incorrectly, that they were acting lawfully.

A plaintiff alleging a conspiracy under § 1983 must plead enough facts to state a claim.

Morpurgo v. Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor · filed 2011-04-05

Insofar as appellant, in her objections and on appeal, has challenged the district court’s dismissal of her conspiracy claims under §§ 1983 and 1985, we find that appellant failed to plead enough facts to state a conspiracy claim under either of those statutes, for substantially the same reasons stated by the District Court.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an actual deprivation of a federally protected right.

Perano v. Township of Tilden · filed 2011-04-13

As a threshold matter, however, a § 1983 conspiracy claim only arises when there has been an actual deprivation of a right.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires evidence of an agreement to deprive the plaintiff of constitutional rights.

Washington v. Amatore · filed 2011-04-13

In Count IV, Washington asserts a § 1983 claim for conspiracy. “To establish a prima facie case of civil conspiracy, a plaintiff must show (1) an express or implied agreement among defendants to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights, and (2) actual deprivations of those rights in the form of overt acts in furtherance of the agreement.” ... Washington has failed to cite any evidence indicating that Amatore had any agreement with anyone to violate his rights.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim cannot survive when the underlying procedural due process claim is not viable.

Santana v. Cook County Board of Review · filed 2011-04-25

Count II of the 4AC alleges a Section 1983 conspiracy to deprive Santana of his reputation (¶¶ 51-66). Both sides agree that if there is no viable underlying procedural due process count, then Count II is no longer viable. For that reason Count II is also dismissed.

Section 1983 permits a conspiracy claim when a state official and private individuals agree to deprive someone of constitutional rights and jointly act with the state or its agents.

Logan v. Wilkins · filed 2011-07-08

“To establish § 1983 liability through a conspiracy, a plaintiff must [establish that] (1) a state official and private individual(s) reached an understanding to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights; and (2) those individual(s) were willful participants in joint activity with the State or its agents.”

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to violate a federally protected right; concerted action alone is insufficient.

Watson v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2011-07-11

As ―the linchpin for conspiracy is agreement,‖ Bailey v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm‘rs, 956 F.2d 1112, 1122 (11th Cir. 1992), concerted action, without more, cannot suffice to state a conspiracy claim.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires evidence of an agreement to act together to inflict an unconstitutional injury.

Torres v. Carry · filed 2011-08-04

Whatever the reason for this discrepancy, standing alone, it does not even begin to support an inference that an agreement existed between officers to act in concert to inflict injury as required under § 1983.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires an actual deprivation of a right.

Thorpe v. Little · filed 2011-08-18

A § 1983 conspiracy claim only arises, however, when there has been an actual deprivation of a right.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts showing a plan or agreement to violate constitutional rights.

Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools · filed 2011-08-26

Heyne’s failure to plead a plan or agreement to violate his constitutional rights is fatal to his conspiracy claim.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an underlying constitutional violation.

Christman v. Holmes etc. · filed 2011-08-30

Finally, given that Christman’s complaint did not allege an underlying constitutional violation, it necessarily failed to allege a § 1983 conspiracy.

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires an actual deprivation of a right.

Crist v. Phelps · filed 2011-09-15

A § 1983 conspiracy claim only arises when there has been an actual deprivation of a right.

Section 1983 conspiracy claims require facts showing that the defendants agreed to deprive someone of constitutional rights; speculation does not suffice.

Hoffman v. Stulga · filed 2011-10-28

Although Hoffman attempts to show that he has stated facts sufficient to support a claim of conspiracy among the defendants, none of the facts asserted by Hoffman show that the defendants conspired and agreed to deprive him of his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 conspiracy and municipal liability claims require an underlying constitutional violation.

Whitsitt v. Central Towing Transport · filed 2011-11-02

Because Whitsitt failed to state an underlying constitutional claim, he cannot state a claim for conspiracy or municipal liability.

Section 1983 requires an actual denial of an underlying constitutional right to support a conspiracy claim.

Signature Pharmacy, Inc. v. Soares · filed 2011-11-15

A § 1983 claim for conspiracy to violate constitutional rights requires showing that a conspiracy existed and it resulted in the actual denial of some underlying constitutional right.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires a deprivation of a federal right and a conspiracy to cause it while acting under color of state law.

Brown v. Hannah · filed 2012-02-06

To sustain a conspiracy claim under section 1983, Brown must establish that: (1) Defendants deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) conspired to do so while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 permits an officer who joined a conspiracy to be held liable for later acts of co-conspirators that harm the plaintiff within the limitations period.

Geinosky v. City of Chicago · filed 2012-03-28

If Geinosky can prove that they were part of a conspiracy, they can still be held liable for the later actions of co-conspirators that harmed the plaintiff during the limitations period.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an actionable deprivation of a federal right.

Arneault v. O'Toole · filed 2012-03-28

Because neither Arneault nor Rubino has successfully pled an actionable constitutional deprivation, neither one can plead a viable conspiracy claim under § 1983.

Section 1983 conspiracy and municipal liability claims fail when the plaintiff cannot establish an underlying constitutional violation.

Schultz v. The Incorporated Village of Bellport · filed 2012-05-01

Because Schultz was unable to establish an underlying violation of his constitutional rights (and because we have declined his invitation to exercise our discretion to consider his newly raised claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution), his conspiracy claim and newly advanced Monell2 claim necessarily fail as well.

Section 1983 can impose liability on a participant in a conspiracy even if that participant’s own act did not cause the constitutional deprivation.

Latiolais v. Griffith · filed 2012-08-08

Both of these arguments can be rejected by the mere fact that Latiolais asserts a section 1983 conspiracy claim against Cravins. Regardless of whether or not Cravins’ actions alone actually caused a constitutional violation, liability can still be imposed on him through his alleged membership in the conspiracy.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires an agreement to deprive someone of constitutional rights, an overt act by a coconspirator, and resulting injury.

Clint Small v. McCrystal · filed 2013-02-19

The plaintiffs must show (1) that a defendant conspired with others to deprive them of constitutional rights, (2) that at least one of the alleged co-conspirators engaged in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (3) that the overt act injured the plaintiffs. ... These facts state a claim that the deputies conspired to fabricate reports seeking warrants against the Warrant Plaintiffs, that both took an overt act to further the conspiracy, and that the plaintiffs were harmed. The deputies are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity from the plaintiffs’ claim of conspiracy under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits a conspiracy claim when an agreement to deny rights results in the actual denial of an underlying constitutional right.

Runge v. Officer Randall Snow · filed 2013-03-27

A plaintiff may state a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to violate constitutional rights by showing a conspiracy existed that resulted in the actual denial of some underlying constitutional right.

Conclusory allegations of a conspiracy to deprive people of constitutional rights do not state a plausible § 1983 claim.

Faith Baptist Church v. Waterford Township · filed 2013-04-11

Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a plausible claim that Defendants conspired to deprive them of their constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires specific facts showing a shared purpose among the alleged conspirators and how the conspiracy operated.

Cuviello v. City of San Francisco · filed 2013-04-15

As to § 1983, Plaintiffs do not allege any specific facts showing a unity of purpose among co-conspirators, the scope of the conspiracy, what role each Defendant had in the conspiracy, or how the conspiracy operated.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts supporting an agreement to violate constitutional rights; a deputy’s presence for security during employee terminations does not alone support that inference.

Martensen v. Koch · filed 2013-04-30

Plaintiffs FAC, however, does not adequately allege that there was an agreement or “meeting of the minds” between the sheriffs deputies and Defendant, or Defendant’s agents, to falsely imprison Plaintiff.

Section 1983 conspiracy claims fail when the plaintiff does not establish an underlying constitutional violation.

Johnson v. Neiman · filed 2013-05-06

Third, because Johnson did not establish a underlying constitutional violation, his related conspiracy claims must also fail.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires two or more conspirators to agree to deprive someone of a constitutional right under color of law.

Godfrey v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2013-05-15

To demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy under § 1983, he needed to show that two or more conspirators reached an agreement to deprive him of a constitutional right under color of law.

Section 1983 requires a conspiracy claim to allege facts showing that the defendants agreed to violate constitutional rights.

Quezada v. Herrera · filed 2013-05-22

The district court properly dismissed Quezada’s conspiracy claims because Quezada failed to allege facts showing that defendants agreed to violate his constitutional rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts showing that defendants agreed to violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Stone v. Becerra · filed 2013-05-22

The district court properly dismissed Stone’s conspiracy claim because Stone failed to allege facts showing that defendants agreed to violate his constitutional rights.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires more than conclusory allegations of a conspiracy.

Wisdom v. Katz · filed 2013-05-22

The district court properly dismissed Wisdom’s claims that Shoshone conspired against him in violation of federal and state law because conclusory allegations of conspiracies are insufficient to support such claims. See Woodrum v. Woodward County, Okla., 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy); Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988) (42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 conspiracy); Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp., 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 752, 757-58 (Ct. App. 1995) (civil conspiracy under California law).

A civil conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires an actual § 1983 violation and an agreement to commit an illegal act.

Smith v. Hebert · filed 2013-06-28

A conspiracy claim requires showings that an actual violation of § 1983 occurred and that the defendants agreed to commit an illegal act.

Section 1983 permits a conspiracy claim when officers conspire to deprive a person of a federal right, a conspirator commits an overt act, and that act injures the person.

S.L. Ex Rel. Lenderman v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Board of Police Commissioners · filed 2013-08-05

To succeed on her § 1983 conspiracy claim, S.L. must show that (1) Harris and Isshawn-O'Quinn conspired to deprive her of a constitutional or federal right, (2) "at least one of the alleged co-conspirators engaged in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy," and (3) S.L. was injured by that overt act.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim must allege facts that plausibly show an agreement to violate protected rights.

Chruby v. Kowaleski · filed 2013-08-07

To plead a conspiracy claim properly, a plaintiff must allege “facts that plausibly suggest a meeting of the minds.” ... We agree that the complaint failed to make allegations of conspiracy with the requisite specificity, and will therefore affirm the dismissal of the conspiracy claim.

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires proof of a conspiratorial agreement; negligence alone cannot support a claim.

Cooney v. Casady · filed 2013-08-19

Without proof of a conspiratorial agreement, the alleged discrepancies in the transcripts suggest at most negligence, on which § 1983 claims cannot be founded.

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires an agreement that results in the denial of an underlying constitutional right.

Woodard v. Town of Oakman · filed 2013-09-10

A plaintiff states a § 1983 conspiracy claim by “showing a conspiracy existed that resulted in the actual denial of some underlying constitutional right.” ... Todd and Wilson are entitled to summary judgment on Phillips’s pending conspiracy claims because the Court has determined, as noted above, that there was nó underlying violation of his constitutional rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts showing that defendants agreed to or actually deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.

Graham v. Orozco · filed 2013-12-09

Judgment on the pleadings was proper on Graham’s conspiracy claim because Graham failed to allege facts showing that defendants agreed to or actually deprived him of any constitutional right.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim fails when the alleged conduct involves no protected activity and the resulting investigation is not an adverse action.

Lakkis v. Lahovski · filed 2014-01-30

First, because the Court has found that Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity when he contacted the Mayor, and the subsequent internal investigation by itself did not constitute adverse action, the conspiracy claim must be dismissed accordingly.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires proof of an actual violation of a federal right.

Johnston v. Town of Orangetown · filed 2014-04-14

Johnston’s accompanying § 1983 conspiracy claim was properly dismissed, because he did not show any violation of his constitutional rights. A § 1983 conspiracy claim “will stand only insofar as the plaintiff can prove the sine qua non of a § 1983 action: the violation of a federal right.”

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires a conspiracy and a deprivation of civil rights in furtherance of it.

Hernandez v. Houston · filed 2014-04-17

Insofar as Hernandez claimed that there was a conspiracy on behalf of members of the police department to cover up the alleged use of force, he may prevail under § 1983 only by establishing the existence of a conspiracy and a deprivation of civil rights in furtherance of that conspiracy.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires both a conspiracy and the deprivation of a constitutional right.

Maynard v. Fallin · filed 2014-04-29

In order to state an actionable § 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff “must prove both the existence of a conspiracy and the deprivation of a constitutional right.” Thompson v. City of Lawrence, 58 F.3d 1511, 1517 (10th Cir. 1995). Our agreement with the district court’s finding of no constitutional violation leads ineluctably to the conclusion that Mr. Maynard’s § 1983 conspiracy claim is not viable.

A section 1983 conspiracy claim requires a conspiratorial agreement and an actual deprivation of a federally secured right.

Cruz-Caraballo v. Rodriguez · filed 2014-07-13

Because Cruz does not sufficiently allege the deprivation of any constitutional or federally-secured rights, he has no conspiracy claim.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires concerted action, an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and a resulting deprivation of a constitutional right.

Massey v. J.J. Ojaniit · filed 2014-07-21

To establish a conspiracy claim under § 1983, a plaintiff “must present evidence that the [defendants] acted jointly in concert and that some overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy which resulted in [the] deprivation of a constitutional right.” Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, W. Va., 81 F.3d 416, 421 (4th Cir. 1996). Because Massey has not stated a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right, his Count III conspiracy claim was properly dismissed as to Officers Ojaniit and Esposito.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires more than an allegation that two people acted together under color of law.

Mallory v. City of Riverside · filed 2014-08-04

This Court held that two persons acting together under color of law is not enough to establish a conspiracy.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires specific facts showing an agreement and concerted action among the defendants; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

D.A. Osguthorpe Family Partnership v. ASC Utah, Inc. · filed 2014-08-13

These allegations fail to allege facts describing a conspiracy among the defendants. “[A] plaintiff must allege specific facts showing an agreement and concerted action among[] the defendants because conclusory allegations of conspiracy are insufficient to state a valid § 1983 claim.”

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim can survive summary judgment when circumstantial evidence permits a jury to infer that defendants shared an agreement to violate constitutional rights.

Gates v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-08-29

Here, like in Davis, circumstantial evidence could lead a jury to find a conspiratorial objective. A jury could find that the defendants shared a tacit understanding to fabricate Gates’ confession to Smith and Smith’s photo identification of Gates.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires factual allegations suggesting an agreement to violate civil rights; conclusory allegations do not suffice.

Brooks v. County of Nassau · filed 2014-10-09

The Court agrees that Brooks’ conspiracy claims under § 1983 and § 1985(3) are not sufficient. ... Brooks’ claims are based on conclusory allegations devoid of factual content suggesting a “meeting of the minds” among or between defendants to violate his civil rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires evidence raising a triable dispute that the defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiff of a right.

Quair v. Honea · filed 2014-10-28

However, we affirm the judgment as to Quair’s conspiracy claim because Quair failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendants conspired to deny him access to the courts.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires an underlying constitutional violation; conspiracy alone does not create liability.

Katzman v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2014-11-04

However, because conspiracy is not itself a tort under § 1983, a claimed conspiracy to violate § 1983 must always have an underlying constitutional violation.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim depends on an underlying constitutional violation and can survive summary judgment when the underlying claims remain viable.

Jones v. Slay · filed 2014-11-18

The defendants are correct that a claim of civil conspiracy is not an independent cause of action, and can only be sustained after an underlying tort claim has been established. ... Because the Court has concluded that defendants’ motions for summary judgment should be denied in part on plaintiffs procedural and substantive due process claims, their motions for summary judgment on the conspiracy claim should be denied as well.

Section 1983 does not support a conspiracy claim among employees of the same municipality acting within the scope of their employment.

Fasoli v. City of Stamford · filed 2014-11-24

However, “[u]nder the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine, officers, agents, and employees of a single corporate or municipal entity, each acting within the scope of his or her employment, are legally incapable of conspiring with each other.” ... As such, Fasoli fails to assert a viable claim of conspiracy in violation of § 1983 and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this subpart of Fasoli’s Count One claim.

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires evidence that defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiff of civil rights.

Ruben Garcia, Jr. v. Smith · filed 2014-12-22

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Merchant, Elias, and Savala on Garcia’s conspiracy claim because Garcia failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Garcia of his civil rights.

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires an agreement to deprive someone of constitutional rights and overt acts that actually cause that deprivation.

Beaman v. Warner · filed 2015-01-13

To establish conspiracy liability in a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) the indi- viduals reached an agreement to deprive him of his constitu- tional rights, and (2) overt acts in furtherance actually de- prived him of those rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an actual denial of an underlying constitutional right.

Valentine v. Sheriff Joel Robinson · filed 2015-01-30

As a result, because no underlying constitutional violation has been shown, Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim also fails. See Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1260 (11th Cir. 2010) (to state a section 1983 claim for conspiracy, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that the alleged conspiracy “resulted in the actual denial of some underlying constitutional right.”).

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to deprive someone of a legal right; speculation alone does not plausibly plead that agreement.

Khalil v. DCP&P · filed 2015-02-04

Rather, they challenge only the District Court’s dismissal of their claims of constitutional conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. Each of these statutes requires, at base, an agreement to deprive an individual of some legal right. ... Without more, such pure conjecture is simply insufficient to state a plausible claim.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires a plausible agreement to deprive someone of a legal right; speculation alone is insufficient.

Khalil v. New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency · filed 2015-02-04

Rather, they challenge only the District Court’s dismissal of their claims of constitutional conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. Each of these statutes requires, at base, an agreement to deprive an individual of some legal right. ... Without more, such pure conjecture is simply insufficient to state a plausible claim.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires a viable underlying claim.

Hopkins v. Springfield Housing Authority · filed 2015-02-24

But Hopkins cannot plausibly allege a claim for conspiracy under § 1983 because he has no claim under the Fair Housing Act or the ADA (or as he asserts for the first time on appeal, the Fourth Amendment) in the first place.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires an agreement or understanding between multiple people to violate another person’s constitutional rights.

Dawson v. Brown · filed 2015-02-27

A civil conspiracy under § 1983 involves an agreement or understanding among more than one person that the individuals will violate another person’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires evidence that the defendants shared a common objective of depriving the plaintiff of civil rights.

Josfan v. Nylon Project · filed 2015-03-03

Josfan failed to produce facts sufficient to support his § 1983 conspiracy claims because there is no evidence that the City and Indochine Defendants shared a common objective of depriving Josfan of his civil rights.

Section 1983 permits municipal liability when a municipal policy or custom caused the deprivation and bars conspiracy claims based on an agreement among employees of the same city.

Gillespie v. City of Battle Creek · filed 2015-03-30

A plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a municipality under § 1983 is required “to identify a municipal ‘policy’ or ‘custom’ that caused the plaintiffs injury.” ... A conspiracy claim under § 1983, like a conspiracy claim under § 1985, requires an agreement between two parties. ... This Court concludes, as have a majority of courts within this circuit, that the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine applies to claims under § 1983. ... Because Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim is premised on an agreement between employees of the City, the conspiracy claim is barred by the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine. The City and the Individual Defendants’ motion for dismissal of Count 3 alleging civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will accordingly be granted.

Section 1983 does not make conspiracy itself a constitutional tort and requires an underlying constitutional violation.

Quiroz v. Short · filed 2015-03-31

Conclusory allegations of conspiracy are not enough to support a § 1983 conspiracy claim. ... The court’s finding that there is no constitutional violation for these claims therefore necessarily means that there is no viable claim for conspiracy.

Section 1983 does not itself create a constitutional tort for conspiracy and requires an underlying constitutional violation for a conspiracy claim.

Quiroz v. Horel · filed 2015-03-31

As the Ninth Circuit has held, “Conspiracy is not itself a constitutional tort under § 1983,” and it “does not enlarge the nature of the claims asserted by the plaintiff, as there must always be an underlying constitutional violation.”

Section 1983 requires plausible allegations of an agreement among conspirators to violate a plaintiff’s rights to state a conspiracy claim.

Hudson v. MacEachern · filed 2015-03-31

Stating a claim under either section, however, requires plausible allegations of an agreement among the conspirators to violate a plaintiffs rights (or factual allegations that allow the reasonable inference of such an agreement). ... As such, the Complaint does not state a claim for conspiracy either under § 1983 or § 1985, ... and the Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED as to this claim.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires an underlying violation of constitutional rights.

Hamborsky v. O'Barto · filed 2015-06-04

Given our conclusion that the malicious prosecution claims fail, Hamborsky’s conspiracy claim must also fail because there is no underlying violation of his constitutional rights, which is a prerequisite for conspiracy liability.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts showing that the defendants reached an understanding to deprive the plaintiff of rights.

Malloy v. Peters · filed 2015-06-15

To sustain a conspiracy action under Section 1983, the plaintiff must show that the parties “reached an understanding” to deny the plaintiff his or her rights. ... Second, Malloy fails to allege any facts to show that the defendants came to an agreement to violate his constitutional rights and, therefore, conspired to retaliate against him.

Section 1983 does not provide an independent conspiracy claim; the plaintiff must have suffered an actual denial of a civil right.

Starks v. City of Waukegan · filed 2015-07-24

But “conspiracy is not an independent basis of liability in § 1983 actions,” Smith v. Gomez, 550 F.3d 613, 617 (7th Cir.2008)i, and therefore “an actual denial'of a civil right is riecessary before a-cause of action [for conspiracy] arises,” Goldschmidt v. Patchett, 686 F.2d 582, 585 (7th Cir.1982).

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to commit an illegal act and an actual deprivation of constitutional rights.

Navarro v. City of San Juan, Texas, e · filed 2015-08-27

Therefore, in order to succeed on a § 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must show: 1) an agreement between the alleged conspirators to commit an illegal act, and 2) an actual deprivation of constitutional rights.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires a conspiratorial agreement and an actual deprivation of a federal right.

Ciolino v. Eastman · filed 2015-09-03

For such a conspiracy to be actionable under Section 1983, however, a plaintiff must prove that there has been, in addition to the conspiratorial agreement, “an actual deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws.” Santiago v. Fenton, 891 F.2d 373, 389 (1st Cir.1989) (quoting Earle, 850 F.2d at 844). ... Furthermore, Plaintiffs have come forth with evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer a conspiratorial agreement.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to violate constitutional rights.

Rob Lear v. Seattle Housing Authority · filed 2015-09-08

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lear’s conspiracy claims because Lear failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants had an agreement to violate his constitutional rights.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires a conspiratorial agreement and an actual deprivation of a federally protected right.

Lasalle v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority · filed 2015-11-10

In order to make out an actionable conspiracy, a plaintiff must show a conspiratorial agreement as well as an actual abridgment of some federally-secured right. ... Even assuming these allegations show a conspiratorial agreement, plaintiffs did not include specific facts plausibly supporting the inference that defendants abridged La-Salle’s federally protected rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim for an arrest without probable cause requires facts plausibly showing that the defendants agreed before the arrest.

Shimomura v. Carlson · filed 2015-12-29

Accordingly, Mr. Shimomura has not pleaded a plausible § 1983 claim for conspiracy to arrest without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We affirm the dismissal of this claim.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to deprive someone of constitutional rights, an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and injury from that act.

Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2016-01-19

To prove a § 1983 conspiracy claim, Sergeant Bonenberger must prove: “(1) that the defendant[s] conspired with others to deprive him of constitutional rights; (2) that at least one of the alleged co-conspirators engaged in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) that the overt act injured [him].”

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires evidence of an agreement to violate constitutional rights.

Caldwell v. Torrance Porch · filed 2016-01-28

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Caldwell’s conspiracy claim because Caldwell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants had an agreement to violate his constitutional rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts showing an agreement to violate the plaintiff’s rights and an actual denial of an underlying constitutional right.

Curtis L. Sparks, Jr. v. Contessa Bell · filed 2016-02-08

A plaintiff may state a claim under § 1983 for conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, which requires that the plaintiff show an agreement by the defendants to violate his rights. Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1283–84 (11th Cir. 2002). The alleged conspiracy must “result[ ] in the actual denial of some ... underlying constitutional right.” Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1260 (11th Cir. 2010).

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim fails when the plaintiff has not established the deprivation of a federally protected right.

Paterno v. Pennsylvania State University · filed 2016-02-25

Here, because I have concluded that the object of the conspiracy claim must be dismissed, the alleged conspiracy claim itself must be dismissed. The amended complaint does not establish a claim for the deprivation of a liberty interest in reputation. Thus, one element of a conspiracy cause of action has not been satisfied, i.e., the deprivation- of a federal protected right.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim fails at summary judgment when the plaintiff offers no proof of an agreement among the defendants.

Diaz-Morales v. Rubio-Paredes · filed 2016-03-21

However, the court finds that the Plaintiff simply failed to set forth any proof of a conspiratorial agreement on the part of the defendants, or even adequately develop an argument in support of his claim. ... In accordance with the foregoing, the court GRANTS the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the Section 1983 conspiracy claims.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires evidence that the alleged conspirators agreed to violate constitutional rights.

Coleman v. County of Suffolk · filed 2016-03-31

Similarly, plaintiffs claim that defendant officers conspired with Jenkins to violate Williams’s due process rights is also dismissed as plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence suggesting that the defendant officers and Jenkins agreed to violated Williams’s rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an underlying violation of a federal right.

Youngs v. Fusaro · filed 2016-03-31

This Court has already held that no reasonable jury could find either a Fourth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment constitutional violation. ... Thus, no § 1983 conspiracy can exist, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires a violation of a constitutional right.

Triplett v. LeBlanc · filed 2016-04-04

Nor do his facts state a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir. 1994), or under § 1985, see Hilliard v. Ferguson, 30 F.3d 649, 652-53 (5th Cir. 1994), because his facts have failed to show the violation of a constitutional right.

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires an agreement to deprive a person of constitutional rights and overt acts that actually cause the deprivation.

Spalding v. City of Chicago · filed 2016-05-11

“To establish conspiracy liability in a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) the individuals reached an agreement to deprive him of his constitutional rights, and (2) overt acts in furtherance [of the conspiracy] actually deprived him of those rights.” ... “Summary judgment is therefore granted on Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim insofar as it pertains to an agreement among all seven officer defendants or to any agreement involving Mills, but it is denied as to the more limited agreements (1) among O’Grady, Rivera, and Roti, and (2) among Barnes, Cesario, and Salemme.”

A § 1983 conspiracy claim can proceed when allegations that defendants encouraged and planned an assault support an agreement to violate constitutional rights.

Strohmeyer v. Belanger · filed 2016-08-05

The district court erred by concluding that Strohmeyer failed to state a conspiracy claim because Strohmeyer alleged that defendants encouraged and planned to allow an inmate to assault Strohmeyer. See Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir. 1983) (“To prove a conspiracy between private parties and the government under § 1983, an agreement or ‘meeting of the minds’ to violate constitutional rights must be shown.”).

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts supporting an agreement to deprive the plaintiff of constitutional rights.

Perez v. Does · filed 2016-09-22

Reading Plaintiffs original complaint to allege a conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights, Plaintiffs claim also fails. To maintain a conspiracy action, the plaintiff “must provide some factual basis supporting a meeting of the minds.”

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires allegations of an agreement to violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; a bare assertion of conspiracy is insufficient.

Hayes v. Kessler & Armfield · filed 2016-11-04

Hayes’ complaint contains no allegations of an agreement and, even if the court construed all claims in the light most favorable to Hayes, his conspiracy claim would still fail.

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires an agreement to deprive someone of constitutional rights and overt acts that actually deprive them of those rights.

Boyd v. City of Chicago · filed 2016-12-06

“To establish conspiracy liability in a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) the individuals reached an agreement to deprive him of his constitutional rights, and (2) overt acts in furtherance actually deprived him of those rights.”

Section 1983 permits conspiracy liability for another defendant’s act only if an actual Section 1983 violation occurred.

Morrow v. Washington · filed 2016-12-02

“A conspiracy may be charged under section 1983 as the legal mechanism through which to impose liability on all of the defendants without regard to who committed the particular act, but ‘a conspiracy claim is not actionable without an actual violation of section 1983.’”

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires specific facts plausibly showing an agreement and concerted action among the defendants and an actual deprivation of constitutional rights.

Turnbough v. Wantland · filed 2017-01-25

To properly allege a conspiracy under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege specific facts that plausibly show (1) an agreement and concerted action between the defendants and (2) an actual deprivation of constitutional rights. ... The complaints contain no other specific facts that would support the alleged conspiracy.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires a violation of federal rights, an agreement to violate those rights, and an actionable wrong.

Pearson v. Augusta ex rel. Davis · filed 2017-03-09

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires a plaintiff to prove three elements: “(1) a violation of [her] federal rights; (2) an agreement among the Defendants to violate such a right; and (3) an actionable wrong.” ... Here, Plaintiffs claim against Mr. Smith fails because, as explained above, she has not produced sufficient evidence to show that she was denied a constitutional right.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts plausibly suggesting an actual conspiracy.

Ronald Bass, Sr. v. State of New Jersey · filed 2017-05-09

Once again, however, Bass pleaded nothing suggesting any actual conspiracy, or even that any evidence was false.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires a deprivation of a federally protected right.

Paterno v. Pennsylvania State University · filed 2017-05-09

Because we find that Appellants’ deprivation claim was properly dismissed, we must also find the alleged conspiracy was properly dismissed since an essential element of the conspiracy—deprivation of a federally protected right—does not exist.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires factual allegations that defendants agreed to deprive someone of federal rights.

D.K. ex rel. L.K. v. Teams · filed 2017-07-05

Here, the AC does not adequately state a claim of conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their federal rights because it does not adequately allege that defendants agreed or had a meeting of the minds to deprive the plaintiffs of such rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an actual deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Hair v. Fayette County · filed 2017-09-13

A § 1983 conspiracy claim, however, is viable only if there has been an actual deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right. ... Absent a deprivation of a federal statutory right, Hair’s § 1983 conspiracy claim fails as a matter of law.

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires an express or implied agreement to deprive a person of constitutional rights and an actual deprivation resulting from that agreement.

Klein v. Brian Williams, Sr. · filed 2017-10-02

For similar reasons, we also conclude that Klein adequately pleaded a conspiracy claim. A conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires “(1) the existence of an express or implied agreement among the defendant officers to deprive [the plaintiff] of his constitutional rights, and (2) an actual deprivation of those rights resulting from that agreement.” Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts showing an express or implied agreement among defendants to deprive a person of constitutional rights.

Leslie Gaines, Jr. v. Sherman · filed 2017-10-04

The district court properly dismissed Gaines’s conspiracy claim because ... Gaines failed to allege facts sufficient to show an express or implied agreement among defendants to deprive him of his constitutional rights. See Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of conspiracy claim under § 1983).

Section 1983 conspiracy liability for false arrest requires an agreement among multiple people to deprive someone of Fourth Amendment rights.

Korlewala v. Slobodian · filed 2017-11-13

The District Court did not err when it held that an agreement was required to sustain the conspiracy claim. Conspiracy to commit false arrest requires an agreement between multiple individuals to deprive another of his Fourth Amendment rights.

A conspiracy claim under Section 1983 requires a conspiratorial agreement and an actual deprivation of rights.

Dyette v. Black · filed 2018-01-23

To succeed on a claim of conspiracy under Section 1983, a plaintiff must prove both a conspiratorial agreement and an actual deprivation of rights.

A section 1983 conspiracy claim cannot proceed when the underlying constitutional claims have been dismissed.

Dyson v. City of Calumet City · filed 2018-01-23

The final section 1983 claim Dyson asserts is for conspiracy, but it too falls short. As an initial matter, Dyson cannot maintain a conspiracy claim when all of her underlying constitutional violations have been dismissed.

A conspiracy claim under § 1983 cannot stand without an underlying constitutional violation.

Dyson v. The City of Calumet City · filed 2018-01-23

As an initial matter, Dyson cannot maintain a conspiracy claim when all of her underlying constitutional violations have been dismissed.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim is redundant when it alleges no injury beyond the underlying constitutional claim and extends liability to no additional defendants.

Gaspar v. Murphy · filed 2018-01-26

Indeed, Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim does not allege any injury above and beyond the predicate unreasonable seizure claim as alleged in Count I – nor does it seek to spread liability to additional defendants.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires evidence of a meeting of the minds to deprive someone of constitutional rights; speculation alone is insufficient.

Stewart v. Speiser · filed 2018-01-29

The first element requires proof that there was a meeting of the minds among the alleged conspirators, Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing cases), and this element cannot be established with mere speculation.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires factual allegations supporting an agreement to deprive the plaintiff of federal rights.

Butler v. Hesch · filed 2018-02-15

In the present matter, the Court finds that the complaint fails to adequately state a claim of conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his federal rights because it does not adequately allege that Defendants agreed or had a meeting of the minds to deprive him of such rights.

Section 1983 permits a conspiracy claim only when an agreement is accompanied by an actual deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Jones v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · filed 2018-02-16

“While conspiracies may be actionable under section 1983, it is necessary that there have been, besides the agreement, an actual deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws.” ... The mere possibility of a conspiracy, without more, does not provide an avenue for relief.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to deprive someone of constitutional rights and an actual deprivation through overt acts.

Torry v. City Of Chicago · filed 2018-02-20

Plaintiffs’ claim for conspiracy under § 1983 requires showing: (1) an express or implied agreement among Defendant Officers to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights; and (2) “actual deprivations of those rights in the form of overt acts in furtherance of the agreement.” Thurman v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 570 F. Supp. 2d 1019, 1029 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (citing Scherer v. Balkema, 840 F.2d 437, 441 (7th Cir. 1988)).

A § 1983 conspiracy claim must allege facts describing the defendants’ agreement or joint activity; reciting those elements is insufficient.

Hoffman v. Dupage County Illinois · filed 2018-03-27

Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “reached an agreement amongst themselves to deprive [her] of her constitutional rights” and “committed overt acts” and participated in “joint activity,” Plaintiff fails to include any facts that describe what those acts or activities entail.

Section 1983 conspiracy and Monell claims fail when no underlying constitutional violation remains.

Briscoe v. Village of Vernon Hills · filed 2018-03-30

As stated above, Briscoe’s § 1983 retaliation claim must be dismissed, and, therefore, no independent constitutional claim exists in this matter. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claim and Monell claim is granted.

Section 1983 conspiracy claims require plausible allegations of an agreement between a state actor and a private party, concerted action to cause unconstitutional injury, and an overt act causing damages.

Corsini v. Brodsky · filed 2018-04-13

To survive a motion to dismiss a § 1983 conspiracy claim, plaintiff must plausibly allege (1) an agreement between a state actor and a private party (2) to act in concert to inflict unconstitutional injury, and (3) an overt act furthering that goal and causing damages.

Section 1983 permits a conspiracy claim when officers agree to make an arrest knowing there is no basis for it.

Watkins v. Village of Maywood · filed 2018-04-20

Viewed favorably to plaintiff, the complaint supports the inference that the other defendant officers agreed with defendant Pope to arrest plaintiff for violation of 515 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1-200, knowing that there was no basis for doing so. Therefore, the Court denies defendant’s motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims.

A conspiracy claim under Section 1983 requires an agreement between two or more state actors to act together to inflict an unconstitutional injury.

Wilson v. City of New York · filed 2018-05-30

Regarding the eighth cause of action, alleging conspiracy under 42 USC § 1983 [*4]against the defendants, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that there was no agreement between two or more state actors to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury upon the plaintiff ( see Pangburn v Culbertson, 200 F3d 65, 72 [2d Cir]).

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires an underlying constitutional violation; without one, the claim fails.

Hendricks v. City of Chicago · filed 2018-05-31

Thus, failure to prove an underlying constitutional violation is fatal to the conspiracy claim.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to deprive someone of constitutional rights and overt acts that actually do so.

Williams v. City of Chicago · filed 2018-06-01

For a § 1983 conspiracy claim, Williams must allege that “(1) the individuals reached an agreement to deprive him of his constitutional rights, and (2) overt acts in furtherance actually deprived him of those rights.”

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires an underlying constitutional injury; conspiracy alone is insufficient.

Harris v. Village of Ford Heights · filed 2018-06-06

A conspiracy alone is not an independent basis for § 1983 liability. ... Count II cannot continue without a viable underlying constitutional claim against Burke, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harris’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1983 conspiracy claims require an underlying deprivation that is actionable under the section.

Sceviour v. McKeon · filed 2018-07-09

Because conspiracy claims under § 1983 are not an independent cause of action, but only a mechanism for establishing liability for deprivations that are otherwise actionable under § 1983, Count III cannot succeed unless Count I does as well.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to deprive someone of constitutional rights, an overt act furthering the conspiracy, and resulting injury. A jury may infer the agreement from circumstantial evidence.

Holmes v. Garrett · filed 2018-07-10

“To prove a § 1983 conspiracy claim, [the plaintiff] must prove: (1) that the defendants conspired with others to deprive him of constitutional rights; (2) that at least one of the alleged co-conspirators engaged in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) that the overt act injured him.” ... But here, unlike Reasonover, the jury heard sufficient evidence to support an inference that Garrett and Sharp reached an agreement to violate Holmes’s constitutional rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires a deprivation of a constitutional right or privilege.

Sours v. Karr · filed 2018-07-18

A plaintiff must “prove a deprivation of a constitutional right or privilege in order to prevail on a § 1983 conspiracy claim.” See Draper v. City of Festus, 782 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 2015). Since Sours cannot show that he was deprived of a constitutional right, his conspiracy claim fails.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts sufficient to show that the defendants conspired to violate constitutional rights.

Edenshaw v. Nms Security · filed 2018-08-22

The district court properly dismissed Edenshaw’s § 1983 conspiracy claims against the Anchorage Community Development Authority, the Anchorage Police Department and NMS Security because Edenshaw failed to allege facts sufficient show that these entities conspired between and among themselves to violate Edenshaw’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires an agreement to deprive a person of constitutional rights and overt acts that actually deprive the person of those rights.

Taybron v. Shaw · filed 2018-09-19

To establish conspiracy liability ... in a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) the individuals reached an agreement to deprive him of his constitutional rights, and (2) overt acts in furtherance actually deprived him of those rights.” ... Given these disputed facts, the existence of an agreement between Baker and Shaw to use excessive force against Taybron is a question of fact that a jury must resolve.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires specific facts showing an agreement to violate constitutional rights; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

Udechukwu v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-09-20

The Court finds Plaintiff's conclusory allegations insufficient to support a conspiracy claim under § 1983.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to deprive the plaintiff of constitutional rights and overt acts that actually cause that deprivation.

Daugherty v. Harrington · filed 2018-10-12

To prevail on a conspiracy claim, “the plaintiff must show that (1) the individuals reached an agreement to deprive him of his constitutional rights, and (2) overt acts in furtherance actually deprived him of those rights.” Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 F.3d 500, 510 (7th Cir. 2015).

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires a conspiracy to deprive someone of a constitutional right, an overt act furthering it, and resulting injury.

Yates v. Holloway · filed 2018-10-16

“To prove a § 1983 conspiracy claim against a particular defendant, the plaintiff must show: that the defendant conspired with others to deprive him or her of a constitutional right; that at least one of the alleged co-conspirators engaged in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and that the overt act injured the plaintiff.” ... Here, Plaintiff does not allege that a conspiracy existed between James Boudreax and the Defendants.

Section 1983 does not allow a standalone conspiracy claim without an underlying constitutional deprivation.

Campos v. Cook County · filed 2018-11-05

However, “conspiracy is not an independent basis of liability in § 1983 actions.” ... Since Plaintiff fails to allege any underlying constitutional deprivation, he cannot bring these conspiracy claims alone.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to cause a constitutional injury and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement that causes damages.

Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Cuomo · filed 2018-11-06

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires "(1) an agreement between two or more state actors or between a state actor and a private entity; (2) to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury; and (3) an overt act done in furtherance of that goal causing damages."

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement to deprive the plaintiff of constitutional rights and an actual deprivation of those rights.

Montgomery v. Ralph Walton, Jr. · filed 2019-01-10

To establish a conspiracy claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must show that there was an agreement among the alleged co-conspirators to deprive him of his constitutional rights and that such an alleged deprivation actually occurred.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts showing that the defendant shared a plan and a general objective to injure someone through unlawful action.

Medlin v. City of Algood · filed 2019-01-16

Nor do the factual allegations - as opposed to legal conclusions - suggest "that there was a single plan" in which Bilbrey shared a "general conspiratorial objective" with others "to injure [Medlin] by unlawful action," Bickerstaff v. Lucarelli, 830 F.3d 388, 400-01 (6th Cir. 2016), all of which are essential to state a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires an agreement and an actual deprivation of a federally secured right; an alleged cover-up must cause an independent constitutional violation.

Jellyman v. City of Worcester · filed 2019-01-22

"In order to make out an actionable conspiracy under section 1983, a plaintiff has to prove not only a conspiratorial agreement but also an actual abridgment of some federally-secured right." ... Here, Plaintiff has not claimed that any constitutional deprivation resulted from the alleged conspiracy. As a result, it is not sufficiently pled.

A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires evidence that the defendants agreed to deprive the plaintiff of constitutional rights.

Black v. Petitinato · filed 2019-01-30

Finally, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on the section 1983 conspiracy claim. As the district court correctly found, Black produced no evidence that the defendants entered into an agreement to deprive him of his constitutional rights.

A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts showing a conspiracy involving state action and a deprivation of civil rights in furtherance of it.

Shaw v. Villanueva · filed 2019-03-11

The plaintiff must not only allege facts that "establish (1) the existence of a conspiracy involving state action," but also "(2) a deprivation of civil rights in furtherance of the conspiracy by a party to the conspiracy."

Section 1983 conspiracy liability requires an agreement to deprive someone of constitutional rights and overt acts that actually deprive them of those rights.

Brown v. Rose · filed 2019-03-12

To establish liability for conspiracy in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that “the individuals reached an agreement to deprive him of his constitutional rights,” and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy actually deprived plaintiff of those rights.