Opinion ID: 2994430
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count two: The Defendants Conspired to Deprive

Text: Amundsen of his Constitutional Rights In relation to the plaintiff’s claim that the defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights, he alleged in his amended complaint that: (1) O’Connor orally reprimanded him; (2) Morales suspended him at a meeting at which Podgorski was also present; (3) Podgorski, Morales and Dunlap caused him to be arrested for criminal trespass to land; and (4) Podgorski and O’Connor gave perjured testimony at his criminal trial. In Kunik v. Racine County, Wisconsin, 946 F.2d 1574, 1580 (7th Cir. 1991), we held that in order to sustain a claim that the defendants conspired to deny the plaintiff his constitutional rights, [t]here must be allegations that the defendants directed themselves toward an unconstitutional action by virtue of a mutual understanding. Even were such allegations to be made, they must further be supported by some factual allegations suggesting a ’meeting of the minds.’ Thus, Amundsen must satisfy the following: (1) allege the existence of an agreement; (2) if the agreement is not overt, the alleged acts must be sufficient to raise the inference of mutual understanding (i.e., the acts performed by the members of a conspiracy are unlikely to have been undertaken without an agreement); and (3) a whiff of the alleged conspirators’ assent . . . must be apparent in the complaint. Id. at 1580-81. Indeed, a conspiracy claim cannot survive summary judgment if the allegations are vague, conclusionary and include no overt acts reasonably related to the promotion of the alleged conspiracy. Id. at 1580; see Spiegel v. Cortese, 196 F.3d 717, 726-27 (7th Cir. 2000). The district court found that the only [denial] Amundsen specifically identifies in his complaint was the denial of his right to due process, as protected by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to allege any action taken by any of the individual defendants that constituted a denial of his right to due process, made no factual allegations supporting a reasonable inference that the individual defendants agreed to any sort of conspiracy and fail[ed] to make any factual allegations supporting the existence of a conspiracy. We agree and similarly hold that Amundsen has failed to make any allegations that constitute a due process violation, much less any constitutional violation. It is clear that the allegations set out in his complaint and reiterated in his briefs and at oral argument fail to set forth any cognizable claim that a conspiracy existed because the allegations are vague, conclusionary and include no overt acts reasonably related to the promotion of the alleged conspiracy. Kunik, 946 F.2d at 1580. Because the plaintiff’s allegations are nothing more than bald assertions without any evidentiary support, we hold that they are insufficient to establish that the defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendants on Count two of the amended complaint.