560 F.2d 625 (5th Cir. 1977), 77-1622, Drummond v. Bunker

Docket Nº:77-1622
Citation:560 F.2d 625
Party Name:William R. DRUMMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, Jesse A. Helms, James A. McClure, Strom Thurmond, Daniel J. Flood, Lawrence P. McDonald, M. Gene Snyder, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Ellsworth BUNKER et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:October 05, 1977
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 625

560 F.2d 625 (5th Cir. 1977)

William R. DRUMMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant,

Jesse A. Helms, James A. McClure, Strom Thurmond, Daniel J.

Flood, Lawrence P. McDonald, M. Gene Snyder,

Intervenors-Appellants,

v.

Ellsworth BUNKER et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-1622

[*]

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

October 5, 1977

Page 626

George S. Leonard, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellant.

Frank J. Violanti, U. S. Atty., Balboa, Canal Zone, Robert E. Kopp, Atty., Steven I. Frank, Atty., Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Canal Zone.

Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William R. Drummond, a citizen of the Canal Zone, appeals from the Canal Zone district court's order quashing service of process by mail on Government officials not personally present in the Canal Zone. Holding that Title 3, § 279 of the Canal Zone Code does not authorize the district court for the Canal Zone to issue extraterritorial service in an in personam action, we affirm.

Drummond seeks to enjoin the President of the United States and certain other Government officials not personally in the Canal Zone from negotiating with the Republic of Panama concerning control of the Panama Canal Zone. He also seeks a declaratory judgment that the power to relinquish United States control over the Canal Zone reposes solely in Congress. Six members of Congress intervened, claiming that the negotiations of the Executive Branch threatened to deprive them of their legislative vote on essential legislation. The district court directed service of the complaint and summons upon each defendant by certified mail. Shortly thereafter, however, on motion, the extraterritorial service was quashed as not being within the power of the court.

Personal process may be effectively served only within the territorial limits of the state in which the district court is held unless extraterritorial service is authorized by statute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f). Under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(e) process may be served upon officers and employees of the United States beyond the territorial limits of the district in which the action is brought. This statute, however, does not apply to the Canal Zone district court...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP