DeMarrias v. US, Civ. No. 88-1018.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 88-1018. |
| Citation | 713 F. Supp. 346 |
| Parties | Lisa Carrion DeMARRIAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Robert Mines, Hot Springs, S.D., for plaintiff.
David L. Zuercher, Asst. U.S. Atty., Pierre, S.D., for defendant.
On May 9, 1988, plaintiff Lisa Carrion DeMarrias brought this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States, James J. Parisien, and Robert Goudreau. Parisien and Goudreau at all relevant times were police officers employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Plaintiff contends that she suffered an injury to her back when officers Parisien and Goudreau arrested her on July 4, 1984. Plaintiff was thirty-two years old and pregnant at the time of the arrest.
In August of 1986, plaintiff was examined by Doctor Jesse Easton in Rapid City, South Dakota. Although Dr. Easton is a medical doctor employed part-time by the Veterans Administration Hospital in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Dr. Easton examined the plaintiff as a part of her private practice. Dr. Easton evaluated plaintiff's back pains and made a report of her examination, which both the plaintiff and defendants have obtained.
On March 9, 1989, the parties made arrangements to take a trial deposition of Dr. Easton in Sioux Falls. Soon after the deposition began, the United States raised objections and instructed Dr. Easton not to answer questions on the grounds that as a federal employee, Dr. Easton could not testify in a tort case against the United States unless authorized to do so. The deposition ended shortly after it had started.
On March 23, 1989, plaintiff filed a "motion for declaratory relief" requesting this Court essentially to overrule the defendant United States' objection to the deposition testimony by Dr. Easton and to award costs for the retaking of her deposition. Defendant United States resists the motion.
At the deposition, the United States based its position that Dr. Easton could not testify on 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205 and 38 C.F.R. § 0.735-22(a). Section 203 of Title 18 sets forth the offenses of extortion and bribery by federal employees and is designed to prevent government corruption. Section 203 simply is not applicable to this situation. See United States v. Adams, 115 F.Supp. 731 (D.N.D.1953), appeal dismissed, 209 F.2d 954 (8th Cir.1954).
Section 205 of Title 18 is also of limited applicability to Dr. Easton in this case. In relevant part, § 205 states:
Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States ... in any agency of the United States, ... otherwise than in the proper discharge of his official duties —(1) ... receives any gratuity, or any share of or interest ... in consideration of assistance in the prosecution of a claim against the United States is guilty of a federal criminal offense.
In enacting § 205, Congress intended to prevent federal employees from using private government information to assist persons who have claims against the United States. See United States v. 679.19 Acres of Land, 113 F.Supp. 590 (D.N.D.1953). Section 205 also is designed to protect the integrity of the government and promote high ethical standards. Athridge v. Quigg, 655 F.Supp. 779, 781 (D.D.C.1987).
This Court can find no cases where an individual who works part-time for a governmental agency has been found to have violated § 205 by testifying in a case against the United States. Indeed, § 205 expressly states that "nothing herein prevents an officer or employee from giving testimony under oath ..." Certainly, § 205 is somewhat cryptic and there is virtually no authority to guide this Court in applying § 205 to this case. Nonetheless, it is clear that the purposes of § 205 are not disserved by permitting Dr. Easton to testify about her observations and findings concerning the examination of the plaintiff that Dr. Easton conducted as part of her private practice.
As additional authority for its position, the United States relies upon 30 C.F.R. § 0.735-22(a), Executive Order No. 11222, and a letter opinion of the Office of Government Ethics dated January 27, 1983. Section 0.735-22(a) merely restates 18 U.S. C. §§ 203 and 205 without elaborating on the pertinent parts of those provisions. Similarly, Executive Order No. 11222, 30 Fed.Reg. 6469 (1965), only outlines ethical standards for government...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osborn v. U.S., 89-5349
... ... court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the government moved for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and so captioned its motion. In supporting exhibits and memoranda, the government urged that ... ...
-
U.S. v. Lecco
...addressing the reach of these provisions. One decision, however, is similar to the present factual scenario. In DeMarrias v. United States, 713 F.Supp. 346 (D.S.D.1989), plaintiff sued the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff had earlier been examined by a physician emplo......
-
Van Ee v. E.P.A.
...the integrity of governmental processes. See United States v. Bailey, 498 F.2d 677, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 135 (1974); DeMarrias v. United States, 713 F.Supp. 346 (D.S.D. 1989); see also Carolyn Elefant, When Helping Others is a Crime: Section 205's Restriction on Pro Bono Representation by Feder......
-
Osborn v. US
... ... UNITED STATES of America, Defendant ... Civ. No. A2-86-160 ... United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Northeastern Division ... May ... ...
-
Public corruption.
...202 F.3d 296, 305-08 (D.C. Cir. 2000,) (discussing legislative history of [section] 205). (234.) But see DeMarrias v. United States, 713 F. Supp. 346, 347 (D.S.D. 1989) (holding there was no conflict which prevented part-time Veteran's Administration doctor from testifying for plaintiff aga......
-
Public Corruption
...An Overly Restrictive Rule, a Comparison, and a Compromise , 27 PUB. CONT. L.J. 37, 72 (1997). 191. DeMarrias v. United States, 713 F. Supp. 346, 347 (D.S.D. 1989). 192. See, e.g. , Carolyn Elefant, When Helping Others Is a Crime: Section 205’s Restriction on Pro Bono Representation by Fede......
-
Public Corruption
...An Overly Restrictive Rule, a Comparison, and a Compromise , 27 PUB. CONT. L.J. 37, 72 (1997). 188. DeMarrias v. United States, 713 F. Supp. 346, 347 (D.S.D. 1989). 189. See, e.g. , Carolyn Elefant, When Helping Others Is a Crime: Section 205’s Restriction on Pro Bono Representation by Fede......
-
Public corruption.
...EPA, 202 F.3d 296, 305-08 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (discussing legislative history of [section] 205). (230.) But see DeMarrias v. United States, 713 F. Supp. 346, 347 (D.S.D. 1989) (holding there was no conflict which prevented part-time Veteran's Administration doctor from testifying for plaintiff......