class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” Griffin, 403 U.S. at 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790. “[A] plaintiff must allege both that the conspiracy was motivated by discriminatory animus against an identifiable class and that the discrimination against the identifiable 'class was invidious.” Farber, 440 F.3d at 135. Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a conspiracy under § 1985 as he has not alleged “the conspiracy was motivated by discriminatory animus against an identifiable class .... ” Ibid. He instead alleges the conspiracy was motivated by Defendants’ desire to cover up their past misconduct or to prevent further litigation, neither of which is sufficient to state a claim under § 1985(3). See Hamilton v. Lajoie, 660 F.Supp.2d 261, 266 (D.Conn.2009)(<HOLDING>). As it is possible that Plaintiff may be able
recognizing that the court sanctions more harshly for cumulative misconduct than for isolated misconduct holding that two instances of misconduct do not indicate a persistent and widespread pattern of misconduct that amounts to a city custom or policy of overlooking police misconduct holding that a refusal to make false statements that no misconduct occurred is a very different circumstance  than an affirmative statement of misconduct holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government holding inmates failure to allege that officers misconduct was motivated by raceor classbased discriminatory animus rather than desire to conceal their own misconduct was insufficient under  19853