to deprive him of his rights. Therefore, all allegations arising under § 1983 must be dismissed.
Along with §§ 1981 and 1983, Sampson has also alleged violations arising under 42 U.S.C. 1985(2) and (3). Subsection (2) can be divided into two parts, the first part pertains to the administration of justice in the federal judicial system, and the second part relating to "conspiracies to obstruct the course of justice in state courts." 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719, 725, 75 L. Ed. 2d 413, 103 S. Ct. 1483 (1983). Section 1985(2) was intended to protect against direct violations of a party or witness' right to attend or testify in federal court. Therefore, in order to state a cause of action under the first part of § 1985(2), a plaintiff must allege a nexus between an alleged conspiracy and a federal court proceeding. Bradt v. Smith, 634 F.2d 796, 801 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 830, 70 L. Ed. 2d 106, 102 S. Ct. 125 (1981). Sampson has failed to allege specifically that the defendants conspired to injure Sampson or any witness for having "attended or testified" in any court of the United States.
The second part of § 1985(2) relates to "conspiracies to obstruct the course of justice in state courts." Hush, 460 U.S. at 725. Thus, that portion of subsection (2) prescribes conspiracies to deny or interfere with equal protection rights. See Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 1985); Stern v. United States Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329, 1341 (7th Cir. 1977). Sampson does not allege that the defendants conspired to obstruct any state judicial proceedings with the intent to deprive Sampson of equal protection of the laws. Therefore he has failed to state a claim under the second part of § 1985(2).
An additional basis for denying Sampson's claim under § 1985(2) is his failure to demonstrate the existence of a conspiratorial agreement between the defendants. Sampson is required to show that there was "a single plan, the essential nature and general scope of which [was] known to each person who is to be held responsible for its consequences." Lenard v. Argento, 699 F.2d 874, 883 (7th Cir. 1983). Sampson's sole allegation of a conspiracy is that Jose Himanis "kept the Plaintiff locked to steel bars attached to the wall, for about an hour, in the presence and incouragement [sic] of the store manager Said Azim and his assistant Ms. Elba Roe . . . ." Although Sampson is pleading pre se, he nevertheless is required to allege some facts before his allegations of a conspiracy may be deemed to state a claim. Tarkowski v. Robert Bartlett Realty Co., 644 F.2d 1204, 1208 (7th Cir. 1980). Unsupported inferences and conclusions are insufficient to support a claim of conspiracy. Simms v. Reiner, 419 F. Supp. 468, 474 (N.D. Ill. 1976). Sampson has failed to allege any factual basis suggesting the meeting of minds necessary to establish his conspiracy claim, and his mere conjecture that there has been a conspiracy is not enough to state a claim. Tarkowski, 644 F.2d at 1208.
Furthermore, Sampson's claim runs afoul of the rule of law announced in Dombrowski v. Dowling, 459 F.2d 190 (7th Cir. 1972), which held that "if the challenged conduct is essentially a single act of discrimination by a single business entity, the fact that two or more agents participated in the decision or the act itself will normally not constitute the conspiracy contemplated by the [Civil Rights Act]." 459 F.2d at 196. Sampson claims that Village Discount, through its employees Himanis, Azim, and Roe, conspired to detain Sampson because of his race. Because Himanis, Azim, and Roe are deemed agents of Village Discount, and because a corporation cannot conspire with itself, the employee's actions cannot constitute a conspiracy. Id. Even if defendants Doe and Stinnett were included as part of the alleged conspiracy, the conspiracy allegation would still be insufficient because, accordingly to the complaint, both Doe and Stinnett were acting as agents of Village Discount at the time of the alleged detainment. Consequently, because Sampson has essentially alleged that Village Discount, through its agents, committed a single act of discrimination, his allegations do not state a claim under § 1985(2).
Like § 1985(2), § 1985(3) also requires the existence of a conspiracy, and for the same reasons stated above, Sampson's § 1985(3) claim fails. Additionally, Sampson's § 1985(3) claim is substantively inadequate to state a claim. An allegation of state action is necessary to state a claim under § 1985(3) if "the federal right relied upon is one requiring an element of state action. " United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1049, 103 S. Ct. 3352 (1983); Briscoe v. LaHue, 663 F.2d 713, 723, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1981), aff'd, 460 U.S. 325, 75 L. Ed. 2d 96, 103 S. Ct. 1108 (1983). Sampson alleges he was denied rights guaranteed to him by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. None of these Amendments apply to strictly private conduct, and Sampson has not alleged any state action. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 195, 20 L. Ed. 2d 522, 88 S. Ct. 1477 (1968); United States v. Shelby, 573 F.2d 971, 974 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 841, 58 L. Ed. 2d 139, 99 S. Ct. 132 (1978); Dombrowski, 459 F.2d at 196. Accordingly, all allegations arising under § 1985(3) must be dismissed.
Even if Sampson's claim included an allegation of state action, or was a type of § 1985 claim that extended to private conspiracies, see Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 29 L. Ed. 2d 338, 91 S. Ct. 1790 (1971) (§ 1985(3) extended to private conspiracies involving violations of the Thirteenth Amendment and right to interstate travel), his claim would fail because it lacks a required element of a § 1985 cause of action: "some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' actions." Griffin, 403 U.S. at 102. Sampson's sole allegation of animus toward those of Jewish faith is contained in the statement allegedly made by Himanis. This statement is insufficient to show there was class-based animus behind the detention of Sampson by the defendants. To the extent racial or class-based animus can be inferred from that sole statement, it cannot be attributable to any of the other defendants, particularly Doe and Stinnett, who were not even alleged to have been present at the time of the incident. Accordingly, the facts alleged in the complaint are insufficient to show that the conspiracy itself was directed at Sampson because of his religion and not for some other reason. See, Rodriguez v. Carroll, 510 F. Supp. 547, 552 (S.D. Tex. 1981); Hauptmann v. Wilentz, 570 F. Supp. 351, 386 (D.N.J. 1983), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1103 (1986). Because Sampson has failed to allege the requisite element of § 1985(3) -- that there be a discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' actions -- his § 1985(3) claims must be dismissed.
Section 1986, which provides that every person having knowledge that certain wrongs conspired to be done or about to be done, and having the power to prevent their commission neglects or refuses to do so, shall be liable to the party injured, is totally dependent upon § 1985 for vitality. Grimes v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1359 (7th Cir,. 1985). Because, as enumerated above, Sampson has not alleged a conspiracy actionable under § 1985, his § 1986 claim must also be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHARLES RONALD NORGLE, SR., Judge
United States District Court