Chaffee v. Johnson, Civ. A. No. 3535.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1964
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 3535.
• Citation: 229 F. Supp. 445
• Parties: Lois CHAFFEE, Plaintiff, v. Paul B. JOHNSON, Jr., individually and as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

229 F. Supp. 445

Lois CHAFFEE, Plaintiff, v. Paul B. JOHNSON, Jr., individually and as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 3535.

United States District Court S. D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.

May 18, 1964.

Paul O'Dwyer, Carl I. Rachlin, New York City, R. Jess Brown, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff.

Thomas H. Watkins, Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., E. W. Stennett, Jack Travis, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for defendants.

MIZE, District Judge.

This is an action brought by Lois Chaffee, a citizen of the State of Idaho, against Paul B. Johnson, Jr., Governor of the State of Mississippi, Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General, Leon F. Hendrick, Circuit Judge, Russell D. Moore, III, County Court Judge, William L. Waller, District Attorney, Allen Thompson, Mayor of the City of Jackson, Jack Travis, City Prosecutor, W. D. Rayfield, Chief of Police of the City of Jackson, J. L. Ray, Deputy Chief of Police, and Ross R. Barnett, former Governor of the State of Mississippi. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from prosecuting plaintiff under an indictment for perjury returned by a grand jury of Hinds County, Mississippi. Her complaint also demands damages from said defendants for alleged violations of her civil rights.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff is presently awaiting trial under an indictment returned by a grand jury charging her with perjury while testifying in a criminal action in the County Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, on October 15, 1963. It is alleged that the defendants entered into a conspiracy to have the plaintiff indicted and prosecuted for perjury for the purpose of intimidating and discouraging plaintiff and others from engaging in civil rights activities. The various defendants filed answers denying the material allegations of the compaint.

The evidence offered by all parties on hearing of plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order wholly failed to substantiate the charges made by plaintiff against the defendants. Although plaintiff was present during the hearing, she did not testify in support of the allegations of her complaint. The defendants took the stand and denied the above mentioned allegations of the complaint unequivocally. The plaintiff has, therefore, wholly failed to make a showing which would entitle her to the temporary restraining order which she seeks.

It is not for this Court to determine either the innocence or guilt of the plaintiff of the offenses for which she stands charged in the Courts of the State of Mississippi. All rights of the plaintiff, including her constitutional rights, will be protected by the State Courts. As an effort to enjoin the prosecution of the plaintiff for perjury in the State Court, the injunction sought herein is prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 2283. H. J. Heinz Co. v. Owens, U.S.C.A.9th, 189 F. 2d 505; T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Williams, U.S.C.A.5th, 275 F.2d 397; Wilson v. Schnettler, 365 U.S. 381, 81 S.Ct. 632, 5 L.Ed.2d 620. Said Section 2283 is not suspended or modified by the Civil Rights Act. Smith v. Village of Lansing, U.S.C. A.7th, 241 F.2d 856; Goss v. State of Illinois, U.S.C.A.7th, 312 F.2d 257. The statutory prohibition is not avoided by enjoining state officials rather than the State Court itself. Sperry Rand Corporation v. Rothlein, U.S.C.A.2nd, 288 F. 2d 245; Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners of Calif., U.S.C.A.9th, 257 F. 2d 520; Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Richman Bros., 1955, 348 U.S. 511, 75 S.Ct. 452, 457, 99 L.Ed. 600; Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118, 62 S.Ct. 139, 86 L.Ed. 100. Counsel for plaintiff rely primarily on United States v. Wood, U.S.C.A.5th, 295 F.2d 772, which holds that Section 2283 is inapplicable to a suit brought by the United States. This clearly distinguishes it from the case at hand.

If this Court had the authority to issue the injunction prayed for, it would not, as a federal Court of equity, issue such injunction in view of the facts disclosed at the hearing. Cleary v. Bolger, 371 U.S. 392, 83 S.Ct. 385, 9 L.Ed.2d 390; Wojcik v. Palmer, U.S.C.A.7th, 318 F.2d 171; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324; Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. v. City of Bristol, D.C., 24 F.Supp. 57, affirmed 305 U.S. 572, 59 S.Ct. 246, 83 L.Ed. 361. An injunction staying State criminal proceedings is an extraordinary remedy which will not be indulged in by a Federal Court of equity except in a case clearly demanding it. Bailey v. Patterson, 368 U.S. 346, 82 S.Ct. 282, 7 L.Ed.2d 332; Warner Bros. Pictures v. Gittone, U.S. C.A.3rd, 110 F.2d 292; Murray Hill Restaurant v. Thirteen Twenty One Locust, U.S.C.A.3rd, 98 F.2d 578; American Mercury v. Kiely, U.S.C.A.2d, 19 F. 2d 295; 1 Joyce on Injunctions, Sec. 109A; 1 High on Injunctions, Sec. 10; South Carolina Power Co. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 525, 52 S.Ct. 494, 76 L.Ed. 1268; United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 56 S.Ct. 829, 80 L.Ed. 1263; Meccano Limited v. John Wanamaker, 253 U.S. 136, 40 S.Ct. 463, 64 L.Ed. 822; Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Free Sewing Mach. Co., U.S.C.A. 7th, 256 F.2d 806; Meiselman v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., U.S.C.A. 4th, 180 F.2d 94.

The complaint alleges, and counsel for plaintiff contend that plaintiff will not receive a fair trial in the Courts of the State of Mississippi. There is no factual basis for any such contention, and there is a strong legal presumption to the contrary. Harrison v. N.A.A.C.P., 360 U.S. 167, 79 S.Ct. 1025, 3 L.Ed.2d 1152; Hawk v. Jones, U.S.C.A.8th, 160 F.2d 807; N.A.A.C.P. v. Bennett, D.C. Ark., 178 F.Supp. 191; Browder v. City of Montgomery, D.C.Ala., 146 F.Supp. 127.

Realizing that their proof did not support the allegations of the complaint against the defendants, counsel for plaintiff, at the hearing, took the position that an injunction should issue to protect the class which plaintiff purported to represent. The complaint described the alleged class as all persons who are workers for the end of discrimination and segregation...