Freddy Roberts; Joan Roberts; Preston Roberts, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Western Management Systems; Beaver Insurance Company;trucking Unlimited Company; Babcock Industrial Clinic; Maxgerchick, M.d.; Edward Boseker, M.d.; John Chung, M.d.;martin Morris, M.d.; Robert R. Shelley; Robert Murray,judge, et al. Defendants-appellees, 972 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1992)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Freddy Roberts, Joan Roberts, and Preston Roberts appeal the district court's order dismissing their civil rights action for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). The Robertses claimed that the defendants conspired to prevent Freddy Roberts from receiving additional medical care and compensation for his on-the-job injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review de novo a dismissal of a civil rights action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 (1987). All allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Tanner v. Heise, 879 F.2d 572, 576 (9th Cir. 1989). Dismissal is appropriate if the district court concludes that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support her claim for relief. Gibson, 781 F.2d at 1337. "Conclusionary allegations, unsupported by facts, [will be] rejected as insufficient to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act." Sherman v. Yakahi, 549 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 1977).

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, it is unlawful to conspire to interfere with certain civil rights. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). "A mere allegation of conspiracy without factual specificity is insufficient." Id. Claims under section 1985 that do not assert a federal interest with the alleged conspiracy require the plaintiff to allege class-based animus. See Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 1985).

Here, the Robertses' amended complaint alleged that the defendants conspired to prevent Freddy Roberts from receiving adequate workers' compensation benefits.¹  Nevertheless, the amended complaint fails to assert facts supporting their claim, rather, it states, as a conclusion, the existence of a conspiracy between the defendants.²  This is insufficient to state a claim under section 1985. See Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 626. Furthermore, the Robertses failed to allege that they were members of a protected class. See Bretz, 773 F.2d at 1029. Therefore, an action under section 1985 was precluded. See id.

AFFIRMED.