Snyder v. Swann, Civ. A. No. 6701.
Decision Date | 28 January 1970 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 6701. |
Citation | 313 F. Supp. 1267 |
Parties | William L. SNYDER v. Charles SWANN, Chairman, Roger T. Riddle, Secretary, R. K. Adcock, Jr., Member, Earl R. Layman, Member, John Cary, Member, Commissioners of Election for Knox County, Tennessee, Mary Carty, Chief Clerk of said Commission, Betty F. Looper and Western Surety Company. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
William L. Snyder, in pro per.
J. Anthony Brown, Law Director, Knox County, J. H. Doughty, Hodges, Doughty & Carson, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendants.
William L. Snyder has complained that the Knox County Election Commission, the Chief Clerk of the Commission, a court reporter and a bonding company have violated his civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq) by not placing his name upon the ballot in the 1968 elections. The Court sustained a motion for a voluntary non-suit against the court reporter and the bonding company. The remaining defendants have filed motions to dismiss.
On June 5, 1968, plaintiff submitted a timely petition1 for the purpose of placing his name upon the ballot as an independent candidate in the Knox County Sheriff's Election. A supplementary petition after the deadline was rejected by the Clerk. On June 25, 1968 plaintiff was notified that his petition was inadequate because an insufficient number of qualified voters had signed it. After discussions with the defendants failed, plaintiff sought an order requiring that his name be placed on the ballot. A hearing was held and the suit dismissed. After the election, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the decree because the question was moot.
The motions to dismiss should be sustained because plaintiff has not stated any claim upon which relief can be granted.
Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion that the suit must be dismissed because of the adjudication in the State Court. The decree stated:
* * *"
The Court holds that this finding bars any claim of the plaintiff for an alleged violation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. Mahan
...clause. See, e. g. Johnson v. Hood, 430 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1979); Vandross v. Ellisor, 347 F.Supp. 197 (D.S.C.1972); Snyder v. Swann, 313 F.Supp. 1267 (E.D.Tenn.1970); Heiser v. Rhodes, 305 F.Supp. 269 (S.D.Ohio 8 This view, itself, may be illusory when it is considered that most totalitari......
-
Vandross v. Ellisor
...for state political office, a right which is incident to state citizenship and not federally protected or guaranteed. Synder v. Swann, D.C., 313 F.Supp. 1267 (1970); Bacon v. Holzman, D.C., 264 F. Supp. 120 (1967); Heiser v. Rhodes, D.C., 305 F.Supp. 269 Despite this court's conviction that......
-
Piper v. Swan
...is not considered a federally protected right. Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944); Snyder v. Swann, 313 F.Supp. 1267 (E. D.Tenn., 1970). However, federal courts have intervened in election matters to protect First Amendment rights. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 21......
-
Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
...Section 304, is appropriate for Sections 1983 and 1985 actions, it is not appropriate for § 1981 actions. However, Snyder v. Swann, 313 F.Supp. 1267 (E.D.Tenn.1970), held this precise statute applicable to a Section 1981 Appellant further contends that his complaint sounds in contract and i......