ORDER AND REASONS

JAY C. ZAINEY, District Judge.

The following motions are before the Court: Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Rec. Doc. 12) filed by the City of New Orleans; Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. 15) and Motion for Sanctions (Rec. Doc. 17) filed by plaintiff Tammy Griffith. The motions are before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.

This case arises out of a discovery controversy that occurred in Civil Action 11-245 c/w 11-535. Tammy Griffith, plaintiff herein, is also the plaintiff in case number 11-245 ("CA11-245"). Griffith's suit in CA11-245 is based on allegations of gender-based discrimination and harassment by former Orleans Parish Juvenile Court ("OPJC") Judge David Bell, and other alleged retaliatory conduct by the other judges on the court. A jury trial in that case is scheduled to commence on November 3, 2014.

The events giving rise to the instant action first occurred on August 17, 2012, while the City of New Orleans was still a defendant in CA11-245. The City's attorney attempted to question Griffith at her deposition about two disciplinary documents ("the Documents") that purported to come from Griffith's personnel file with OPJC.1 According to Griffith, the Documents were not part of the personnel file that the City had produced to counsel on February 9, 2012, and they lacked any indicia of authenticity. On January 28, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims against the City in CA11-245. (CA11-245, Rec. Doc. 300).

On June 16, 2014, Griffith was re-deposed in CA11-245, and the attorney for OPJC attempted to question her about the Documents. According to the deposition transcript from June 16, 2014, the Documents were attached as exhibits to Griffith's 2012 deposition with the City. (CA11-245, Griffith 6/16/14 deposition at 137).

Griffith filed the instant suit against the City on June 19, 2014, alleging that the City, through its attorneys, conspired with OPJC to violate her rights under federal law as recognized by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2)-(3), and 1986.2 Griffith suggests that counsel for OPJC represented that he must have obtained the documents "from the record" because they were attached to Plaintiff's deposition taken by the City of New Orleans. (Comp. ¶ 26). Counsel for Griffith later perused all 433 documents in "the record" of 11-245 c/w 11-535 and confirmed that the Documents are not "in the record."3 (Comp. ¶ 29).

The City now moves to dismiss the complaint and seeks sanctions against Griffith's counsel for filing what the City believes to be a frivolous lawsuit. Although none of the City's proffered arguments in support of dismissal are meritorious or legally correct, the Court is persuaded that the complaint nonetheless fails to state a claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1985 is a civil conspiracy statute.4 The law in this circuit recognizes that a § 1985(2) or (3) claim must be grounded on racial animus, not gender animus. Bryan v. City of Madison, 213 F.3d 267, 276 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Newberry v. East Tex. State Univ., 161 F.3d 276, 281 n.2 5th Cir. 1988)); Mitchell v. City of Sugar Land, No. 10-223, 2011 WL 1156253, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2011) (citing Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200, 202-03 (5th Cir. 1989)). Racial animus forms no part of the complaint in either of Griffith's cases. But even if gender animus satisfies the class-based animus requirement of §§ 1985(2) & (3), the claims still fail because a municipality cannot as a matter of law enter into a conspiracy. Batiste v. City of Beaumont, 421 F.Supp.2d 969, 988 (E.D. Tex. 2005); Mitchell, 2011 WL 1156253, at *8 (citing Benningfield v. City of Houston, 157 F.3d 369, 378 (5th Cir. 1998); Hiliard v. Ferguson, 30 F.3d 649, 653 (5th Cir. 1994)). Griffith has no plausible claim under § 1985 and without a § 1985 claim she cannot state a claim under § 1986. Bryant, 213 F.3d at 276. To the extent that Griffith seeks to state a claim against the City in her amended complaint under § 1983, that claim fails because it does not comprise the elements for municipality liability under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

To the extent that the complaint states any claims under state law, the Court declines jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Rec. Doc. 12) filed by the City of New Orleans is GRANTED as follows: All federal claims against the City of New Orleans are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; all state law claims against the City of New Orleans are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the request for sanctions is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. 15) and Motion for Sanctions (Rec. Doc. 17) filed by plaintiff Tammy Griffith are DENIED.