§ 1983 Conspiracy

What It Is

A § 1983 conspiracy claim alleges that two or more people, acting under color of law, reached an agreement to deprive you of a constitutional right, and that an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy caused you injury.

The Elements

1. An agreement — Two or more persons agreed to deprive you of a constitutional right
2. An overt act — At least one conspirator took action in furtherance of the agreement
3. A constitutional deprivation — You were actually deprived of a constitutional right as a result

The agreement is the hard part. Conspirators rarely put their plans in writing. You’re usually proving the agreement through circumstantial evidence: coordinated conduct, parallel actions, communications, implausible coincidences.

The Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine

Here’s a trap: many circuits hold that employees of a single government entity cannot conspire with each other under § 1983 because they’re considered a single legal actor. This is the “intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.”

Under this doctrine, three officers from the same police department who coordinate to fabricate a report aren’t “conspiring” — they’re one entity acting through its agents.

Some circuits have exceptions (especially when officers are acting for personal motives rather than within the scope of employment), but this doctrine kills many conspiracy claims.

Pleading Standard

After Iqbal/Twombly, you can’t just allege “defendants conspired.” You need facts showing:

• Who agreed with whom
• What they agreed to do
• When and how the agreement was formed (or facts from which the agreement can be inferred)
• What overt acts were taken

Circumstantial evidence that works: unusual coordination, deviation from standard procedures, communications between conspirators around the time of the violation, or conduct that only makes sense if there was a prior agreement.

Why It Matters

Conspiracy claims expand liability. An officer who wasn’t physically present for the constitutional violation can still be liable if they participated in the conspiracy. A supervisor who directed the violation from the station can be reached. And conspiracy claims can sometimes bypass qualified immunity defenses because conspiring to violate constitutional rights is never “reasonable.”

Key Cases

• Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980) — Private parties can be liable under § 1983 if they conspire with state actors
• Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) — Conspiracy between state and private actors for racially motivated arrest