Hayes v. C.E.O. of Morey's Pier

1 Citing case

  1. DeForte v. Blocker

    Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-113 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2017)   Cited 6 times

    Inasmuch as §1985 is not implicated by the facts pled in this case, no claim can be stated against Zandarski under § 1986. See Heath v. Shannon, 442 F. App'x 712, 718 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) ("Because [the plaintiff] failed to state a conspiracy claim under § 1985, the District Court properly ruled that his related § 1986 claims also failed.") (citation omitted); Hayes v. C.E.O. of Morey's Pier, No. CV 16-9063 (RBK/AMD), 2017 WL 65539, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 6, 2017) ("Because plaintiff failed to state a conspiracy claim under § 1985(3), he also fails to state a related § 1986 claim against all defendants."). For the reasons stated, DeForte's claims under 42 U.S.C. §1985 and §1986 will be dismissed with prejudice.