either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities of the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.’ ” Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 314 (6th Cir.2005). To prevail on a section 1985 claim, “there must be some racial or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ actions.” Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 314 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971)); see also Smith v. Thornburg, 136 F.3d 1070, 1078 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The officers’ subjective intent for making an
holding that plaintiff must present such evidence holding that custody decision based on race is not justified holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity holding that the plaintiff further must demonstrate that the conspiracy was motivated by a class based animus such as race