Allen v. Corsano
Decision Date | 26 June 1944 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 388. |
Citation | 56 F. Supp. 169 |
Parties | ALLEN v. CORSANO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
James R. Allen, pro per.
Vincent A. Theisen, of Wilmington, Del., for defendant.
Plaintiff appears pro se and is the author of his own pleadings. As stated by Judge Biggs, in a similar situation,1 "In view of these facts the court will endeavor to construe the pleading and plaintiff's contentions without regard for technicalities."
This is an action for damages under 8 U.S.C.A. § 47(3) based upon a conspiracy to interfere with plaintiff's civil rights.2 Jurisdiction is bottomed on 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(12). A clear understanding of the nature of the alleged wrongs done plaintiff may be had if the complaint is recited in haec verba. The complaint:
Defendant moved to dismiss because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff then filed a motion to dismiss defendant's motion to dismiss, on the ground that "the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that `In suits at common law, when the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved'", and because defendant's motion to dismiss was filed with the "intent and purpose * * * to obstruct and defeat the orderly course of justice by depriving the Plaintiff of his constitutional right of trial by jury and to prevent consideration of the charges in the Plaintiff's complaint."
While the instant action is against defendant alone, the alleged conspiracy is between defendant, the persons against whom plaintiff had certain claims, and unnamed officials of the Delaware State Tax Department. As charged the alleged injury consists of the deprivation of equal protection of the laws of Delaware in that defendant, as a minor judicial officer, refused to accept plaintiff's claims for suit or to issue process against plaintiff's alleged debtors. Plaintiff admittedly seeks no redress on the ground that the State of Delaware discriminates against him or that its laws fail to afford equal protection. The conspiracy charged here is against individuals who, by concert of action, have agreed to injure plaintiff by depriving him of his right to utilize the minor judicial system of the State of Delaware.
Such actions on the part of defendant and others, if true, do not constitute a cause of action as contemplated by the statute invoked. Although the statute, in a modified form, has been in existence since July 31, 1861, 12 Stat. 284, 17 Stat. 13, there has been a paucity of judicial interpretation. Two comparatively recent cases, however, lend support to defendant's motion that the complaint should be dismissed.
In Love v. Chandler, 8 Cir., 124 F.2d 785, 786, an action was brought against individual defendants alleging they had conspired to prevent plaintiff from being employed under the WPA. Defendants were either officers or agents of the United States or the State of Minnesota. It was charged that in furtherance of the conspiracy defendants had subjected plaintiff to threats, assaults, and certain insanity proceedings. Plaintiff there, as here, based his cause of action on § 47(3) of Title 8 U.S.C.A. and § 41(12) of Title 28. In affirming the district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Sanborn wrote:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hardyman v. Collins, 8004-Y.
...L.Ed. 1423. 36 Mitchell v. Greenough, 9 Cir., 1938, 100 F.2d 184. 37 See cases cited in Notes 33, 34, 35, 36. And see, Allen v. Corsano, D.C.Del., 1944, 56 F.Supp. 169. 38 United States v. Classic, 1941, 313 U.S. 299, 315, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 1038, 85 L.Ed. 1368, and see Clyatt v. United States,......
-
Dyer v. Kazuhisa Abe
...Bottone v. Lindsley, 10 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 705, certiorari denied, 1949, 336 U. S. 944, 69 S.Ct. 810, 93 L.Ed. 1101; Allen v. Corsano, D.C.D.Del.1944, 56 F. Supp. 169. 49 See footnote 50 See footnote 17. Both the Hague and Lane cases were decided after the Ninth Circuit decision of Mitche......
-
Whittington v. Johnston, 14051.
...distinct. They are not equivalents. Mitchell v. Greenough, 9 Cir., 100 F.2d 184; McShane v. Moldovan, 6 Cir., 172 F.2d 1016; Allen v. Corsano, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 169. No facts are pleaded which show that plaintiff has been subjected to any inequality of treatment. There is no charge that by s......
-
Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...below should have applied the rule of Ghadiali v. Delaware State Medical Society, D.C.Del., 48 F.Supp. 789, 790, and Allen v. Corsano, D.C.Del., 56 F.Supp. 169, 170, that where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for the protection of civil rights the court should endeavor to construe the p......