Brown v. Donielson

• Decision Date: 22 November 1971
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 10-288-C-2.
• Citation: 334 F. Supp. 294
• Parties: Doug BROWN et al., Plaintiffs, v. Allen L. DONIELSON, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

334 F. Supp. 294

Doug BROWN et al., Plaintiffs, v. Allen L. DONIELSON, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, Defendant.

Civ. No. 10-288-C-2.

United States District Court, S. D. Iowa, Central Division.

November 22, 1971.

Raymond Rosenberg, Gerald Levy, Martin R. Dunn, and Louis Lavorato, Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiffs.

Allen L. Donielson, U. S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION.

HANSON, Chief Judge.

This memorandum opinion is predicated upon the plaintiff's attempt to join in the multitude of recent challenges, on constitutional grounds, to the validity of statutes compelling witnesses to testify while granting immunity from the use of such testimony in subsequent prosecutions.¹ The matter came on for hearing before the Court on June 23, 1971, at which time the Court denied all of the relief requested by the plaintiffs.² Their attack, however, raised issues sufficiently novel that the Court was then unable to locate a reported case in point and the Court then indicated that this memorandum opinion would follow. (To facilitate comprehension of the issues as they existed then before the Court, the balance of this opinion is written in the present tense.)

The Grand Jury for the Southern District of Iowa is now investigating possible criminal violations in regard to gambling activities. Plaintiffs James Mays and Ralph Scatino were served separate subpoenas ad testificandum and did appear previously before the Grand Jury as directed. However, they declined on Fifth Amendment grounds to answer certain questions whereupon they were excused. Subsequently, each of the plaintiffs has been served with a subpoena ad testificandum commanding their appearance before the Grand Jury on June 23, 1971. On June 22, plaintiffs filed the instant complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, and the convening of a three-judge district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2282 and 2284. Plaintiffs allege that jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Plaintiffs complain substantially as follows:

1) That they each intend to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned before the Grand Jury.

2) That they anticipate the Defendant will thereupon seek an order from this Court granting Plaintiffs' immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 6002, 6003 or, in the alternative, 18 U.S.C. Section 2514, and compelling each of them to testify before the Grand Jury.

3) That they anticipate being called back to testify before the Grand Jury.

4) That, should any of the plaintiffs continue to refuse to testify or answer any question upon the grounds that such testimony might tend to incriminate, they anticipate the Defendant will initiate proceedings to have such Plaintiffs punished for contempt of Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 401(3).

5) That the only applicable immunity statute for the crimes being investigated by the Grand Jury is 18 U.S.C. Sections 6002, 6003, which are repugnant to the Constitution for failure to provide immunity from prosecution co-extensive with the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.³

6) That they anticipate that the Defendant will proceed to offer immunity to Plaintiffs under 18 U.S.C. Section 2514⁴ in order to avoid litigating the contentions urged against 18 U.S.C. Sections 6002, 6003.⁵

7) That 18 U.S.C. Section 2514 is applicable only to investigations or charges under Chapter 119 of Title 18, "Wire Interception and Interception of Oral Communications".

8) That Section 259 of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Public Law 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, amends or repeals 18 U.S.C. Section 2514, to the extent that it no longer provides transactional immunity but grants only the narrower "use" immunity as apparently provided in Sections 6002, 6003, and therefore now suffers from the same constitutional infirmities.⁶

This Court issued an order to show cause which came on for hearing on June 23, at which time Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include a prayer for a temporary restraining order. The United States Attorney orally moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that (a) no jurisdictional amount exists; (b) the challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. Section 2514 is premature in that no case or controversy presently exists over application of the statute to the plaintiffs; and (c) Section 2514 remains in full force and effect and is constitutional.⁷ At the conclusion of the hearing this Court dismissed the cause for each of the reasons urged by the Defendant.

I—FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION

A—Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

The Constitution itself does not give rise to an inherent injunctive power to prevent its violation by governmental officials. But, it cannot be doubted today that the federal courts can exercise traditional equity powers under any general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts by Congress. Cf. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 56-61, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932). Jurisdiction over general federal question cases was conferred upon the federal courts in 1875.⁸ The Supreme Court since that time has repeatedly implied that there exists injunctive relief in the courts for threatened or continuing constitutional violations. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 218-223, 1 S.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed. 171 (1882); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908); Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U.S. 605, 32 S.Ct. 340, 56 L.Ed. 570 (1912); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (Opinion of Harlan, J., concurring, p. 398, 91 S. Ct. 2005. And see Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp. 813 (S.D.Cal.1947).

B—Jurisdictional Amount:

Plaintiffs allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. The complaint sets forth no prayer for money damages in any amount, but as amended, sets forth prayers for injunctive relief and for a temporary restraining order. The question confronting the Court is simply whether a prayer for injunctive relief to restrain the defendant from exceeding his constitutional authority establishes federal question jurisdiction when the complaint specifies no particular allegations of the nature of the threatened injury nor prays for money damages.

The Constitution has no limitation on access to the federal courts based on an amount in controversy. Article III grants Congress the power to establish such inferior courts as it pleases. From this provision stems the theory that Congress can limit access to the courts which it creates, since it need not have created lower federal courts at all.⁹ Jurisdiction over general federal question cases was not conferred upon the federal courts until 1875,¹⁰ and the amount in controversy requirement has risen from an original $500 to the present $10,000.

In Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U.S. 496, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939), individual citizens and others brought suit against city officials to enjoin the latter from interfering with rights of free speech and assembly, and from enforcing ordinances charged to be facially unconstitutional. The complaint alleged the requisite jurisdictional amount to be in controversy. After trial upon the merits, the District Court entered findings of facts and conclusions of law in favor of the plaintiffs. The Circuit Court of Appeals held the District Court had jurisdiction under Section 24(1) and (14) of the Judicial Code. The Supreme Court modified the decree and, as modified, affirmed in a 5-2 decision. The majority decision was expressed in three separate concurring opinions, none of which commanded more than two justices. However, it appears that all five of the majority agreed that the District Court would have jurisdiction under the Judiciary Code, Section 24(14) now 28 U.S.C. Section 1343(3). The majority, however, declined to sustain jurisdiction under Section 24(1) now 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, unable to agree upon the jurisdictional amount. Justice Roberts, with Justice Black concurring, declared:

"The wrongs of which respondents complain are tortious invasions of alleged civil rights by persons acting under color of state authority. It is true that if the various plaintiffs had brought actions at law for the redress of such wrongs the amount necessary to jurisdiction under Section 24(1) would have been determined by the sum claimed in good faith. Footnote omitted. But it does not follow that in a suit to restrain threatened invasions of such rights a mere averment of the amount in controversy confers jurisdiction. In suits brought under subsection (1) a traverse of the allegation as to the amount in controversy, or a motion to dismiss based upon the absence of such amount, calls for substantial proof on the part of the plaintiff of facts justifying the conclusion that the suit involves the necessary sum. Footnote omitted. The record here is bare of any showing of the value of the asserted rights to the respondents individually. * * We conclude that the District Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 24 (1)." 307 U.S. at 507-508, 59 S.Ct. at 960. (Emphasis added.)

Justice Roberts then concluded that Section 24(14) applied only to cases arising under the Privileges and Immunities clauses. 307 U.S. at 510-515, 59 S.Ct. 954.

Justice Stone, in an opinion concurred in by Justice Reed, argued that the Congressional history of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 read together with the histories of the 1875 and 1911 judiciary acts, necessitated the conclusion that, under the Due Process clause, Section 24(14) required no jurisdictional amount,¹¹ and that the jurisdictional amount was not necessary in every case under Section 24(1):

"Since all of the suits thus authorized are suits arising under a statute of the United States to redress deprivation of

...