Opinion ID: 793140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Merits: HFCA Officials

Text: 35 As to defendants Kelly and Daniel, the federal (HCFA) appellees, there is insufficient evidence. A federal actor may be subject to section 1983 liability where there is evidence that the federal actor was engaged in a conspiracy with state defendants, see, e.g., Kletschka v. Driver, 411 F.2d 436, 448-49 (2d Cir.1969). In this case, Beechwood points to evidence that Kelly and Daniel were supportive of DOH's effort to revoke the operating certificate, and were invested more generally in the effort to shut down Beechwood. There is the chicken-roosting e-mail from state defendant Rubin that HCFA will back us all the way, as well as one side of an e-mail correspondence in which state defendant Leeds states [w]e have been working with HCFA on this one and HCFA has been cooperative as Mr. Chambery has tried to go around the state to HCFA. 36 Cooperation between state and federal bureaucracies acting in their regulatory spheres supports no inference that the federal actors acted with an improper motive. See Hafner v. Brown, 983 F.2d 570, 577 (4th Cir.1992) (concluding that § 1983 civil conspiracy requires a meeting of the minds to accomplish the unlawful act  (emphasis added)); cf. Strickland v. Shalala, 123 F.3d 863, 868 (6th Cir.1997) (worrying about rendering the United States subject to § 1983 liability in every case arising out of a cooperative federalism scheme). There is no evidence suggesting that the federal defendants acted based on an unconstitutional animus as opposed to a spirit of cooperation. Therefore we affirm the judgment of dismissal as to the federal defendants.