Plaintiffs’ section 1985 cause of action should therefore be dismissed. 2. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege That They are a Racial Minority or Experienced Discrimination on That Basis, as Required Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Section 1981 provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to . . . the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.”

Courser does not and cannot allege membership in any protected class or discrimination against him because of such membership. Accordingly, any claim under § 1985(3) also fails. C. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim against the News or Livengood in Count 7

USE OF ACTION, ¶¶162-171; (4) alleged conspiracy to commit sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 – Case 1:15-cv-00444-BKS-DJS Document 57-2 Filed 07/25/16 Page 9 of 30 3 id., EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION, ¶¶172-81; (5) alleged conspiracy to commit sexual harassment hostile work environment under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 – id., NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION, ¶¶182-91; (6) alleged conspiracy to retaliate under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 – id., TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, ¶¶192-201; (7) alleged conspiracy to commit sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) – id., EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION, ¶¶202-11; (8) alleged conspiracy to commit sexual harassment hostile work environment under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) – id., TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION, ¶¶212-

While criticism can be directed as to whether the pleading should state that Constitutional rights were violated thus giving the right to relief under said two statutes, the fact remains that the Fourth Cause of Action does indeed plead relief under section 1983. And, because the Burner Defendants have not challenged this basis, the motion to dismiss this cause of action must be denied insofar as the Burners rely on their argument that Simonek does not fall within a protected class under § 1985.

See James Taylor Trash Removal v. District of Columbia, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13845, at *8 (D.D.C. Sept. 1, 1999) (“D.C. government officials, acting within the scope of their employment, are considered members of a single entity for the purposes of § 1985.”) Thus, there can be no conspiracy concerning the events at Pershing Park because the District and the defendants comprise a single entity, and thus are not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Kelley, 893 F. Supp. 2d at 120; Tabb v. District of Columbia, 477 F. Supp. 2d 185, 190 (D.D.C. 2007) (both holding that intracorporate conspiracy doctrine involving the District of Columbia and its agents defeats a conspiracy claim under § 1985).

In fact, the Complaint contains the contradictory allegation that Mr. Reese acted “at all times material hereto . . . Case 3:16-cv-00902-MEM Document 25 Filed 05/18/17 Page 20 of 139 15. within the scope of [his] authority, course of employment and under the direct control of Macy’s.” Complaint, Doc. 1, at ¶ 8. Though conclusory in nature, this allegation reinforces the applicability of the intracorporate doctrine to her purported conspiracy claim and supports its dismissal with prejudice. For all of the reasons cited above, the Court should dismiss the § 1985(3) conspiracy claim set forth in Count VI. D. THERE IS NO VIABLE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION. Plaintiff purports to assert a claim for “wrongful termination” in Count VII. Count VII should be dismissed for its failure to state a claim as a matter of law. Pennsylvania generally does not recognize a common law cause of action for termination of an at-will employment relationship.

Doe v. United States, __ F.3d __, No. 15-50331, 2016 WL 4036382, at *2 (5th Cir. July 27, 2016) (citing District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 424-25 (1973)). Similarly, each of Plaintiff’s claims under section 1985 should be dismissed because: (1) Plaintiff is not a federal official, thus failing to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1); (2) Plaintiff fails to plead a conspiracy, the existence of a judicial proceeding, or a witness related thereto, thus failing to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); and, (3) Plaintiff fails to plead that anyone, let alone the Individual Federal Defendants, deprived him of equal protection under the law, thus failing to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Case 3:16-cv-02010-L Document 24 Filed 09/19/16 Page 13 of 43 PageID 403 Brief in Support of the United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss – Page 3

Section 1985 provides a cause of action for conspiracies to interfere with one’s civil rights. (42 U.S.C. § 1985). 10.

¶ 80.) Yet the Complaint fails to allege any facts that support actual intimidation, threats, harassment or a single fact pertaining to the RPP’s violation of either 42 U.S.C. § § 1985(3) or 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b). While Plaintiff’s allegations are from multiple sources spanning multiple months, they decided to file this action ten (10) days before the Election.

Even if the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not divest the Court of jurisdiction over the claims in Richardson’s second count, the statute of limitations would do so. This is another issue that was fully litigated in Richardson IV-C, 05-0210 (ESH) slip op. at 3 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2005) (Ex. 13). Because Congress has not specified a statute of limitations for constitutional claims, such as those brought under § 1983 or § 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 instructs the courts to look to the local law’s personal injury statute of limitations.