450 F.2d 356 (2nd Cir. 1971), 30, Perrucci v. Gaffey

• Citation: 450 F.2d 356
• Party Name: Anthony PERRUCCI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Martin A. GAFFEY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Case Date: October 26, 1971
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 356

450 F.2d 356 (2nd Cir. 1971)

Anthony PERRUCCI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Martin A. GAFFEY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 30, 71-1305.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

October 26, 1971

Argued Sept. 15, 1971.

Anthony Perrucci, pro se.

Morton H. Greenblatt, Meriden, Conn., for defendant-appellee.

Before KAUFMAN, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

FEINBERG, Circuit Judge:

In the November 1968 election, plaintiff Anthony Perrucci, then an enrolled Democrat, ran unsuccessfully as an independent candidate for a state office in Connecticut having a two year term. In

Page 357

January 1969, defendant, the Democratic Registrar of Voters for the City of Meriden, summarily removed plaintiff's name from the Democratic enrollment list and notified plaintiff of his action by telephone. Defendant acted under authority of a Connecticut party disaffiliation statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 9-60, 9-61 (1967), ¹ which provided, inter alia:

[I]f the name of any elector appears on the ballot label at an election only under a party designation other than that of the party with which he is enrolled, whether such elector was nominated by a major or minor party or by nominating petition, such name shall be removed from the enrolment list for a period of time equal to the term of the office for which he is a candidate.

Perrucci ignored the possibility that relief may have been available in the state court ² and in October 1970, commenced an action pro se in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. In his complaint plaintiff requested a declaration that the statutes relied upon by defendant unconstitutionally deprived plaintiff of his right to vote in primaries and to participate in the full electoral process, and sought injunctive relief ordering defendant "to immediately restore the Plaintiff's name to the enrollment list of the Democratic party in Meriden." In addition, plaintiff sought "[d]amages and costs for all expenses and loss by reason of having to bring this action * * *."

After Judge M. Joseph Blumenfeld held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction requiring his affiliation pending the outcome of the litigation, but before Judge Blumenfeld issued his decision, plaintiff notified the court that his name had been reinstated on the enrollment list effective January 1, 1971. Although Judge Blumenfeld acquiesced in plaintiff's request to withdraw his motion, he filed a Memorandum of Decision in which the court, sua sponte, dismissed plaintiff's action, concluding that "the constitutional issues raised by the plaintiff were unsubstantial, and that, therefore, there was no basis for federal jurisdiction." Before the judgment of dismissal was entered, however, the court also granted plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to allege that "[t]he amount in controversy exclusive of interests and costs exceeds the sum of ten thousand dollars." Subsequently, the court denied various motions made by plaintiff which included requests to vacate the order of dismissal and to permit a further amendment to the complaint, alleging a deprivation of rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff appeals from the order dismissing the complaint as well as from the orders denying post-judgment relief. We affirm, but do so without reaching the merits of the issues raised by plaintiff.

It is quite clear to us that the sole purposes of this action were to obtain a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the...