Opinion ID: 652671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Summary Judgment as to Conspiracy Count

Text: 25 Count IV alleges a conspiracy among the officers to violate Fisher's civil rights. Specifically, the complaint charges that: 26 at the time plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned at the Wayne County Jail in Detroit, their employees and agents wrongfully conspired and agreed to and among themselves, expressly and/or tactically [sic] by word and/or deed, to deprive plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws and of the privileges and immunities to which he was entitled.... 27 The complaint goes on to allege that the individual officers conspired to (a) hold plaintiff against his will, (b) to refuse to release him upon his request, (c) to hold a probable cause hearing, (d) to isolate plaintiff from his friends, (e) to hide plaintiff's medical condition, and (f) to give the plaintiff medical treatment. 28 A civil conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more persons to injure another by unlawful action. Pillette v. Detroit Police Dep't., 661 F.Supp. 1145, 1148 (E.D.Mich.1987), aff'd mem., 852 F.2d 1288 (6th Cir.1988). To be successful on a civil conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must show that there was a single plan, that the alleged conspirator shared in the general conspiratorial objective, and that an overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy that caused injury. Id. (citing Hooks v. Hooks, 771 F.2d 935 (6th Cir.1985). When challenging the conduct of public officials exercising publicly conferred discretion, the plaintiff shoulders the additional burden of showing that qualified immunity should not shield the public officials from liability. Wegener v. City of Covington, 933 F.2d 390, 392 (6th Cir.1991). 29 Courts have traditionally viewed conspiracy suits against public officials with suspicion and disfavor. Accordingly, pleading requirements governing civil conspiracies are relatively strict. Plagued by a large number of frivolous Sec. 1983 suits, federal courts have come to insist that the complaint state with specificity the facts that, in the plaintiff's mind, show the existence and scope of the alleged conspiracy. Slotnick v. Stavinskey, 560 F.2d 31, 33 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1077. Fisher's conspiracy claim was appropriately dismissed on summary judgment. 30 The allegations that the defendants deprived Fisher of any rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause are simply unsupported. The conduct described was not within the officers' discretion, and in any event, has not been shown illegal (that is, Fisher has not pointed to any facts even arguably making the conditions of plaintiff's detention illegal). Finally, the allegations that the officers refused plaintiff medical attention are without moment. Fisher failed to allege particular facts with required particularity in this regard. Since plaintiff has not made insufficient allegations to support his conspiracy theory, that claim was properly dismissed on summary judgment. 31 We AFFIRM in all respects save the plaintiff's claim of a substantive due process violation in Count III. Based on additional proof, or upon a reasoned analysis, summary judgment may also be appropriate on this count. We, accordingly, REVERSE and REMAND, for the limited basis indicated, as to a portion of Count III.