Jump to content
foolish

Hypothetical question

14 posts in this topic

 

I have a hypothetical question that hopefully someone can share a productive response.  Here is the question can  a defendant or defendants be dismissed in a suit for various reasons that formed part of claim without dismissing the claim itself against the other defendants for example in a conspiracy claim that deferent or defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiff of rights or privileges, where some defendants claims are dismissed due to for example immunity claims that they are immune from suit for whatever reason.  Does immunity claims as to the immune defendant or defendants 'clean the entire slate' on the other defendant from the conspiracy claims when there was actual conspiracy and evidence of rights and privileges that were violated that otherwise would not have occurred had the defendant not conspired against the plaintiff?    

 

In other words would the conspiracy claims against the defendants survive despite dismissal of the immune conspirators 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy is not an independent cause of action in a civil matter as you describe it.  The claim is the deprivation of rights or privileges.  If the deprivation occurs despite the immunity of one party to the actions, the claim may proceed against the remaining party.  However, the alleged conspiracy would necessarily fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RetiredinVA said:

Conspiracy is not an independent cause of action in a civil matter as you describe it.  The claim is the deprivation of rights or privileges.  If the deprivation occurs despite the immunity of one party to the actions, the claim may proceed against the remaining party.  However, the alleged conspiracy would necessarily fail.

 

I can understand the immunity aspect of the defendants but that I still can't grasp or understand the part that the conspiracy claims failing aspect simply because certain defendants would be immune from suit (how is that if you loose the conspirator through immunity then the conspiracy is forgot despite the foot prints the conspirators left behind). what if there is not only a deprivation of privileges and rights but a continuum of deprivation of rights or privileges?   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, foolish said:

 

I can understand the immunity aspect of the defendants but that I still can't grasp or understand the part that the conspiracy claims failing aspect simply because certain defendants would be immune from suit (how is that if you loose the conspirator through immunity then the conspiracy is forgot despite the foot prints the conspirators left behind). what if there is not only a deprivation of privileges and rights but a continuum of deprivation of rights or privileges?   

 

 

Answering questions like this in the abstract is really not possible since the specific facts involved, who the defendants are, and the actual claims being made are important. And it makes a huge difference whether it is a criminal or civil proceeding. In a civil setting, conspiracy is generally not a stand alone claim; rather a conspiracy claim is generally used as a way to hook additional defendants into the lawsuit. The actual claim against the defendants is something else. In those cases if all but one defendant is dismissed then there is no conspiracy angle to pursue: that last defendant either committed the underlying civil wrong (e.g. deprivation of rights) or he didn't.

 

On the other hand there are stand alone conspiracy crimes and the fact that charges against one defendant are dropped might not be fatal to the conspiracy charge against another. One party to the conspiracy getting immunity to testify against the other co-conspirator is a classic situation where the case against the remaining defendant might still proceed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're misunderstanding. If there is a claim of conspiracy to defraud Amy lodged against Ben and Cindy, and later the charges against Cindy are dismissed, but  not Ben, it's still possible to prosecute Ben for fraud against Amy but there cannot be a conspiracy charge because it takes more than one person to conspire.

 

Sorry, Tax's post was not there yet when I responded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me I understand that specifics matter and I like always appreciate the patience and only turn here for some guidance to get a better grasp on the issue.  Let me give a another example in civil suit claiming that both state and federal defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiff of his federally protected rights but a sued in both their 'individual' and  'official' capacities in the federal court and the state actors claims that they are immune from suit but in my research only half might be true the half that might be true is that the state actors might be immune in their ''official'' capacities but not their ''individual'' capacities for violations of federally protected rights.  The claim against the state would bar he conspiracy in  the official capacity but the same defendants in their individual capacity, am I correct.  Wouldn't the claims against state actors in their individuals remain intact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are not understanding is that in the circumstance you  described, there is no action for conspiracy.  The wrong for which you may sue is the deprivation of rights.  Whether state and federal agents "conspired" to deprive you of your rights is irrelevant. 

 

And yes there are claims available against federal and state actors in their individual capacities.  See Bevins and its offspring.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RetiredinVA said:

What you are not understanding is that in the circumstance you  described, there is no action for conspiracy.  The wrong for which you may sue is the deprivation of rights.  Whether state and federal agents "conspired" to deprive you of your rights is irrelevant. 

 

And yes there are claims available against federal and state actors in their individual capacities.  See Bevins and its offspring.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RetiredinVA said:

What you are not understanding is that in the circumstance you  described, there is no action for conspiracy.  The wrong for which you may sue is the deprivation of rights.  Whether state and federal agents "conspired" to deprive you of your rights is irrelevant. 

 

And yes there are claims available against federal and state actors in their individual capacities.  See Bevins and its offspring.

 

 

 

Thanks for the insight,  I understand that the relevant issue is the deprivation of rights, what I was mauling over was the capacities which individuals are sued and the bars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, foolish said:

can  a defendant or defendants be dismissed in a suit for various reasons that formed part of claim without dismissing the claim itself against the other defendants

 

Yes.  Happens all the time.

 

 

21 hours ago, foolish said:

Does immunity claims as to the immune defendant or defendants 'clean the entire slate' on the other defendant from the conspiracy claims when there was actual conspiracy and evidence of rights and privileges that were violated that otherwise would not have occurred had the defendant not conspired against the plaintiff?

 

This is a very convoluted sentence, but I think what you're asking is whether a person is absolved from a "conspiracy" claim simply by conspiring with someone who has immunity.  The answer to that is no.  Also note that "conspiracy," without more, is typically not an actual cause of action.  Or are you asking about a criminal prosecution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pg1067 said:

 

Yes.  Happens all the time.

 

 

 

This is a very convoluted sentence, but I think what you're asking is whether a person is absolved from a "conspiracy" claim simply by conspiring with someone who has immunity.  The answer to that is no.  Also note that "conspiracy," without more, is typically not an actual cause of action.  Or are you asking about a criminal prosecution?

 

I appreciate the patience iI understand its not only convoluted but t is vague but that's me holding my cards to my chest as best I can but believe its not close enough so bare with me.  The issue is federal law under 42 U.S. Code Sect. 1985(3), attached to 1983 claims and others .  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, foolish said:

The issue is federal law under 42 U.S. Code Sect. 1985(3), attached to 1983 claims and others .

Are you talking about 42 USC 1985(3) which begins:

 

"(3)Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any personor class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; "

 

Seriously,  you can"t just pick out a paragraph ccontaining the words "conspire" and "damages" and create a new cause of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×