◆ SpookStack

- O° O not actionable as a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 88 (9th Cir. 1988); McDonough v. Ney, 599 F. Supp. 679, 683 (D. Me. 1984). Furthermore, House Defendants are entitled to immunity. For actions taken within the "legislative sphere," the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, cl. 1, protects legislators "not only from the consequences of litigation’s results but also from the burden of defending themselves." Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975), quoting, Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85 (1967). In addition, defendants are protected by qualified immunity available for government officials who, when performing discretionary functions, "generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory. or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." a Vv. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); see also Anderson _v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987). The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are vague, conclusory, unsupported by ‘facts. -and,. therefore, insufficient to demonstrate that defendants violated plaintiff's constitutional rights let alone a clearly established constitutional right. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with respect to House Defendants. Plaintiff maintains that all defendants conspired to "totally destroy his business and family, imprison him for ten (10) >. consecutive years on account of a criminal conviction in this Court, and keep him on federal parole for additional eight (8)