vacating the Board’s order because substantial evidence did not show that the employee’s supervisor knew of his protected activity
How later courts described this case
- vacating the Board’s order because substantial evidence did not show that the employee’s supervisor knew of his protected activity
- "Inasmuch as the plaintiffs sought to hold the private defendants liable on a theory that they conspired with the judge to bring about the allegedly unconstitutional acts, the district court held that the judge being immune, and no other state action be *360 ing properly alleged, the constitutional claims against the other defendants should also be dismissed.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PELL, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the affirmance in this case because of the lack of requisite particularity in the allegations of conspiracy.
On the pleadings in this case the district court judgment is properly affirmed without any necessity of reaching the issue as to whether under other circumstances there may be a situation where private persons may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 even though the only state action was through a person entitled to immunity. Whether or not there should be a per se rule of no liability as to the private persons in such a situation should be deferred for decision until the issue is before us. It is not now.
BAUER, Circuit Judge, joins in Circuit Judge PELL’s concurrence.