Opinion ID: 800586
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Humane Society Defendants

Text: Crawford also claims the Humane Society defendants seized her dogs for their personal benefit, noting they received some of the confiscated dogs. Moreover, she claims she was approached by these defendants while in custody and asked to forfeit the dogs in exchange for the charges being dropped after the first seizure. Together, Crawford contends, these facts create a material question as to whether the Humane Society defendants were acting in concert to take Crawford's dogs. We agree with the district court that summary judgment was proper on Crawford's claims against the Humane Society defendants. Because a section 1983 claim applies to state action, and the defendants are private citizens, Crawford must establish not only that a private actor caused a deprivation of constitutional rights, but that the private actor willfully participated with state officials and reached a mutual understanding concerning the unlawful objective of a conspiracy. Dossett v. First State Bank, 399 F.3d 940, 951 (8th Cir.2005). Crawford simply presents no evidence amounting to a civil conspiracy, other than unsupported speculation. See Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782, 801 (8th Cir.2011) (To survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must substantiate his allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in his favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Notably, the defendants' mere presence during the search was not sufficient to prove a conspiracy existed. Therefore, the court properly granted summary judgment because no evidence supported the conspiracy allegations. We affirm. [2]