What is the test for a motion alleging that defendants have engaged in a continuous conspiracy to stifle plaintiff's First Amendment rights?

The remaining claim that defendants have engaged in a continuous conspiracy to stifle plaintiff's First Amendment rights is too vague to proceed. Plaintiff offers few details regarding this conspiracy and he makes no specific allegations of personal involvement on the part of any of the defendants. Nor does he offer any timeline of conspiratorial activity that would allow the court or the defendants to determine whether any of these First Amendment claims are themselves timely. Accordingly, the court concludes that he has not met the Rule 8 pleading requirement that he put defendants on notice of the specific allegations against each of them. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) ("All that is required are sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.").