×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Conspiracy Claim Must Be Supported by Facts
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 that conspiracy claims must be supported by facts and evidence.
Mrs. Alvera M. Aldabe filed civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985(3) claiming that a conspiracy between her ex-husband, several lawyers, as well as several state judges, resulted in an unfavorable outcome in her divorce proceedings.
This case was heard in the U.S. Eastern District Court of California. The district court determined that conspiracy, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985, occurs when two or more people conspire to deny any person equal protection. Several courts have determined that when a racially or otherwise “individually discriminated animus” is behind the conspirator’s action, the injured party might be entitled to recover damages. See: Griffin v. Breckenridge, 91 S.ct. 1790, 1798 (1971); and/or Briley v. California, 564 F. 2d 849, 859 (9th Circ. 1977). However, because Mrs. Aldabe failed to allege any facts showing how each defendant harmed her or showing an overall plan to deprive her of any state or federal rights, the district court dismissed her case with prejudice.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Mrs. Aldabe’s claim de novo and affirmed the district court’s ruling. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F. 2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980).
Mrs. Alvera M. Aldabe filed civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985(3) claiming that a conspiracy between her ex-husband, several lawyers, as well as several state judges, resulted in an unfavorable outcome in her divorce proceedings.
This case was heard in the U.S. Eastern District Court of California. The district court determined that conspiracy, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985, occurs when two or more people conspire to deny any person equal protection. Several courts have determined that when a racially or otherwise “individually discriminated animus” is behind the conspirator’s action, the injured party might be entitled to recover damages. See: Griffin v. Breckenridge, 91 S.ct. 1790, 1798 (1971); and/or Briley v. California, 564 F. 2d 849, 859 (9th Circ. 1977). However, because Mrs. Aldabe failed to allege any facts showing how each defendant harmed her or showing an overall plan to deprive her of any state or federal rights, the district court dismissed her case with prejudice.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Mrs. Aldabe’s claim de novo and affirmed the district court’s ruling. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F. 2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Aldabe v. Aldabe
| Year | 1980 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 616 F. 2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |