Opinion ID: 531371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Civil Rights

Text: 24 Count II of the amended complaint is based on the alleged violation of the Cummingses' civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1985(2) and 1986. Passed as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, Section 1985(2) proscribes the intimidation of witnesses in a federal court action. 4 Section 1986 enforces Section 1985 by imposing liability on persons neglecting or refusing to prevent violations of that Section. The essence of this Count is that the defendants attempted to influence Thomas Cummings' testimony before the bankruptcy court with respect to its approval of the proposed settlement. Based on these provisions, plaintiffs seek $54 million in actual damages and $225 million in punitive damages. 25 Like the RICO count, the civil rights claim also requires a standing analysis. As the district judge recognized, 698 F.Supp. at 1396-1397, remedial Sections 1985(3) and 1986 have been held to give monetary relief only to a party and not a mere witness such as Mr. Cummings. 5 Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir.1988); David v. United States, 820 F.2d 1038 (9th Cir.1987). This interpretation is supported by the specific language of Sections 1985(3) and 1986, which shows that Congress intended to provide a damage remedy only for litigants whose right to pursue a claim in federal court has been hindered by a conspiracy or by neglect or refusal to aid in the prevention of the conspiracy. Otherwise the term witness would have been contained in those remedial provisions. 26 We need not rest on a literal construction of party in Sections 1985(3) and 1986, however, because both limit liability to one who has been injured or deprived. Thomas Cummings testified fully at the bankruptcy proceeding and used that opportunity for a spirited attack on the proposed settlement; he has done so again with vigor in this suit. There has been no allegation that he was in fact hampered from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully, in the words of Section 1985(2), or because of any neglect or refusal by defendants in the words of Section 1986. Plaintiffs have simply not pointed to an injury or deprivation within the scope of Section 1985 or 1986. Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents, 859 F.2d 732, 735 (9th Cir.1988) (Even if potential witnesses to [plaintiff's] federal action were intimidated, such intimidation had no effect on his ability to present a case in federal court.); Brown v. Chaffee, 612 F.2d 497, 502 (10th Cir.1979).