Love v. Chandler

• Decision Date: 13 January 1942
• Docket Number: No. 12105.,12105.
• Citation: 124 F.2d 785
• Parties: LOVE v. CHANDLER et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

124 F.2d 785 (1942)

LOVE v. CHANDLER et al.

No. 12105.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 13, 1942.

Harold R. Love, pro se.

Carsten L. Jacobson, Asst. City Atty., of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee Ole A. Pearson.

Per M. Larson, Asst. Co. Atty., of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee Donald C. Bennyhoff and another.

George P. Hoke, of Minneapolis, Minn. (Hoke, Cobb & Janes, of Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief), for appellee J. C. Michael.

Victor E. Anderson, U. S. Atty., of St. Paul, Minn. (Russell C. Rosenquest, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Paul, Minn., on the brief), for appellee S. L. Stolte and others.

Iver W. Stark, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee Mabel F. Gadbois.

Before GARDNER, SANBORN, and WOODROUGH, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment dismissing the appellant's complaint in an action for damages, upon the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In substance, the claim stated in the complaint is that the appellees, most of whom are officers or agents of either the United States or the State of Minnesota, have engaged in a conspiracy to prevent, and have prevented, the appellant from having and holding employment under the Works Progress Administration, for which employment the appellant, as a citizen of the United States and as a poor person, was eligible and qualified; and that the appellees, in furtherance of their conspiracy, have subjected the appellant to threats, assaults, insanity proceedings and temporary wrongful deprivation of liberty.

The appellant contends that his complaint states a claim under § 47(2) and (3) of Title 8 U.S.C.A., authorizing actions for damages for conspiracies to deprive citizens of the equal protection of the laws or from exercising any right or privilege as a citizen of the United States, and that it also states a claim under § 48 of Title 8 U.S.C.A., which authorizes the recovery of damages from any person who, having knowledge of such a conspiracy and the power to prevent it, neglects or refuses so to do. The appellant further contends that the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action by virtue of § 41(12), (13) and (14) of Title 28 U.S.C.A., which confer upon the District Courts of the United States jurisdiction of actions to recover damages for deprivation of rights in furtherance of such conspiracies as are described in § 47 of Title 8 U.S.C.A.

The trial court was of the opinion that, since this Court had held in Love v. United States, 108 F.2d 43, 49, that the right of the appellant to be employed by the Works Progress Administration was not an absolute right conferred by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that the District Court was without jurisdiction to review the administrative action of which the appellant had complained in that case, the complaint in the instant action, under the rule announced in Mitchell v. Greenough, 9 Cir., 100 F.2d 184, certiorari denied 306 U.S. 659, 59 S.Ct. 788, 83 L.Ed. 1056, did not state a claim for damages resulting from a conspiracy to deprive the appellant of any right or privilege dependent upon a law of the United States.

The statutes which the appellant seeks to invoke were passed shortly after the Civil War to aid in the enforcement of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting State action the effect of which would be to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or to deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process or to deny any person the equal protection of the law, and the Fifteenth Amendment prohibiting the denial of the right to vote on account of race or color. See Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 78, 38 S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed. 149, L.R.A. 1918C, 210, Ann.Cas.1918A, 1201. The statutes were intended to provide for redress against State action and primarily that which discriminated against individuals within the jurisdiction of the United States. Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 509-514, 59 S. Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1, 14-20, 27 S.Ct. 6, 51 L. Ed. 65; Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 290, 291, 12 S.Ct. 617, 36 L.Ed. 429. The statutes, while they granted protection to persons from conspiracies to deprive them of the rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States (United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, 387, 388, 35 S.Ct. 904, 59 L.Ed. 1355), did not have the effect of taking into federal control the protection of private rights against invasion by individuals. Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1, 14-20, 27 S.Ct. 6, 51 L.Ed. 65;...