Kenney v. Fox, Civ. A. No. 2542.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1955
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 2542.
• Citation: 132 F. Supp. 305
• Parties: Edward James KENNEY, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Raymond W. FOX, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

132 F. Supp. 305

Edward James KENNEY, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Raymond W. FOX, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 2542.

United States District Court W. D. Michigan, S. D.

June 3, 1955.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Edward James Kenney, Jr., Benton Harbor, Mich., in pro. per.

Gould Fox, Kalamazoo, Mich., for defendant.

STARR, Chief Judge.

On Plaintiff's Motion for a More Definite Statement

Rule 12(e) as amended of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides in part:

"If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, he may move for a more definite statement before interposing his responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired."

Rule 7 as amended of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled "Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions", provides in part:

"There shall be a complaint and an answer; and there shall be a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a third-party complaint, if leave is given under Rule 14 to summon a person who was not an original party; and there shall be a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer."

Rule 12(e) as amended, which I quoted does not provide for a responsive pleading to a motion to dismiss. Therefore, as a responsive pleading to defendant's motion to dismiss is not permitted or required in the present case under Rule 12(e), the plaintiff is not entitled to a more definite statement with respect to that motion. See Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, 3d Ed. § 15.66, pages 78 and 79; and § 15.298, page 276.

Furthermore, and probably more important, is the fact that the defendant's motion to dismiss because the complaint fails to state a claim against the defendant upon which relief could be granted, presents only a simple and single question or issue. That is, assuming the allegations of material facts to be true, does the complaint state a claim upon which relief could be granted against the defendant? Therefore, as this motion to dismiss presents only a single, definite, and certain question, it requires no further elucidation or explanation.

For the reasons which I have stated the plaintiff's motion for a more definite statement as to the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

On Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint

This motion by the defendant to dismiss the present action should be determined promptly, and from memoranda which I have prepared in the course of preparation for this hearing I will now dictate my opinion from the bench.

In order that the record of this hearing and the court's holdings may be complete and understandable, I will set forth briefly the factual background in the case of Edward James Kenney, Jr., v. Dr. Roy A. Morter and others, instituted in the circuit court of Kalamazoo County, and out of which case this present action arises.

It appears that in November, 1950, the probate judge of Berrien County, Michigan, entered an order committing Edward James Kenney, Jr., the plaintiff in the present action, to the Kalamazoo State Hospital, and that he was detained in the state hospital until about August, 1952. It further appears that in a subsequent proceeding instituted by Kenney in the circuit court of Berrien County, an order or decree was entered in October, 1954, declaring his commitment to the state hospital in 1950 to be null and void, and enforcement of said order of commitment was permanently enjoined.

It further appears that in July, 1954, Kenney began a civil action for money damages in the circuit court of Kalamazoo County, Michigan, against Dr. Roy A. Morter, medical superintendent of the Kalamazoo State Hospital, and against other doctors and employees of that hospital, alleging, among other things, false imprisonment and abuse and improper treatment. It appears that Dr. Morter, one of the defendants in that action in Kalamazoo County, filed a motion to dismiss the action. It further appears that Judge Raymond W. Fox, the defendant in the present action in this court, is the judge of the circuit court of Kalamazoo County and heard Dr. Morter's motion to dismiss Kenney's action against him. It further appears that Judge Fox rendered his decision, granting Dr. Morter's motion to dismiss the action against him.

Plaintiff Edward James Kenney, Jr., on December 14, 1954, filed complaint in the present action in this court against Judge Fox, charging that in dismissing Kenney's action in the circuit court of Kalamazoo County against Dr. Morter and others, Judge Fox acted legislatively and without jurisdiction, and that in dismissing that action Judge Fox denied him due process of law and equal protection of law, and violated his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In his present action in this court plaintiff Kenney asks for money damages from Judge Fox, in the sum of $123,000 or, in the alternative, for a declaratory decree determining Judge Fox' dismissal of Kenney's suit in the circuit court of Kalamazoo County against Dr. Morter and others to be null and void.

Plaintiff Kenney bases jurisdiction of his present action in this court on 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 as amended, which provides:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

"(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;

"(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

"(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States."

He also bases jurisdiction of the present action on 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201, which relates to declaratory judgments and which provides:

"In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes, any court of the United States and the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such."

Plaintiff Kenney bases his claim to recovery in the present action on the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C.A., § 1983 (formerly 8 U.S.C.A., § 43), which provides:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

In his complaint against Judge Fox in the present action plaintiff Kenney contends in substance that Judge Fox, by dismissing his suit against Dr. Morter and others in the circuit court of Kalamazoo County, deprived him of due process of law and equal protection of law, and deprived him of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States and laws enacted by the Congress, and that Judge Fox should be held liable to him for money damages for such alleged deprivations. As I stated before, the defendant, Judge Fox, has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the present action, on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim against him upon which relief can be granted.

At the outset, this court recognizes that action of state courts and state judicial officers in their official capacities is regarded as the action of the state within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the federal guarantee of due process extends to state action through its judicial as well as through its legislative, executive or administrative branch of government. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, pages 14 to 17, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161.

Even though the judicial decision of Judge Fox dismissing plaintiff Kenney's circuit court suit in Kalamazoo County might be held to constitute state action, that fact does not determine the question in the present case as to whether Judge Fox could be held liable in money damages for such judicial decision, which Kenney alleges was erroneous. It should be noted at this point that no appeal was taken by plaintiff Kenney from Judge Fox' decision granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the Kalamazoo County suit and therefore such decision stands as proper, and as the law of that case, until reversed by a higher or appellate court. The principal question in the present case is whether, assuming the plaintiff's allegations of material facts, but not his allegations of mere conclusions, to be true, does the complaint state a claim upon which relief could be granted against Judge Fox. In other words, the principal question in the present case is whether, assuming only for the purpose of defendant's motion that Judge Fox' decision dismissing the Kalamazoo County case was erroneous, as contended by plaintiff, would such erroneous decision entitle plaintiff Kenney to recover money damages from...