American Federation of R.R. Police, Inc. (AFRP) v. National R.R. Passenger Corp. (AMTRAK), 1279
| Decision Date | 28 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 1279,D,1279 |
| Citation | 832 F.2d 14 |
| Parties | 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2892, 56 USLW 2307, 107 Lab.Cas. P 10,210 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF RAILROAD POLICE, INC. (AFRP), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK), Raymond Ingalls, Robert Herman, Oscar Benjamin, Sam Nickerson, and Robert Bagosy, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 87-7233. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Erick F. Larsen, New York City (Kranz, Davis & Hersh, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert A. McCullough, New York City (Joanna L. Moorhead, Mark S. Landman, Amy B. Gallent, Siff, Newman, Rosen & Parker, P.C., New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, KEARSE and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff American Federation of Railroad Police ("AFRP"), the recognized collective bargaining representative of certain policemen employed by defendant National Railroad Corporation ("Amtrak"), appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Richard Owen, Judge, dismissing for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction its complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982), alleging that Amtrak's policy of ejecting homeless persons from Pennsylvania Railroad Station ("Penn Station") in New York City violated various constitutional rights of both the homeless and the Amtrak police officers required to enforce the policy. The district court held that AFRP had no standing to assert claims on behalf of homeless persons and that the claims asserted on behalf of Amtrak policemen were either premature or were work rule disputes that, under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Secs. 151 et seq. (1982), were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board ("NRAB"). On appeal, AFRP contends principally that the court should not have dismissed the complaint, because Amtrak policy requires the use of force at a constitutionally impermissible level, and because the NRAB has no power to adjudicate claims of constitutional violations. For the reasons below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
In June 1985, Amtrak articulated a policy of ejecting "homeless and undesirable[ ]" persons from Penn Station. It thereafter repeatedly instructed its police officers to "eject all undesirables with whom they come in contact" and to "escort these loiterers out of Penn Station." Amtrak regarded the failure of its policemen to eject such indigents as a ground for disciplinary action.
AFRP, which represents Amtrak policemen having a rank of lieutenant or lower, including those assigned to patrol Penn Station, commenced the present action in late 1986. The complaint alleged that the Amtrak policy (1) violated the rights of homeless persons to due process, equal protection, liberty, freedom of expression and assembly, and the privileges and immunities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and (2) violated the rights of Amtrak policemen by exposing them to (a) discipline for failing to enforce the policy, the details of which the complaint alleged were vague both in defining "homeless" and "undesirable" and in describing the procedures to be followed, (b) physical and emotional injury for policemen who attempted to enforce the policy, and (c) liability for civil rights violations for attempting to enforce it. AFRP sought a declaratory judgment that Amtrak's policy was unconstitutional, an injunction against Amtrak's requiring its policemen to carry Amtrak promptly moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; AFRP cross-moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court granted Amtrak's motion. In an endorsed memorandum, the court ruled that AFRP's claim that its members might suffer personal injury in enforcing Amtrak's policy or disciplinary action for not enforcing it reflected a dispute over work rules and working conditions, the resolution of which lay within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NRAB, see 45 U.S.C. Sec. 153 First (i). It ruled that AFRP's claim that its members risked exposure to liability for violating the civil rights of any homeless persons ejected from the station was not ripe for consideration since the exposure was conjectural or hypothetical rather than real and immediate. The court ruled that AFRP had no standing to assert the constitutional rights of homeless persons.
out the policy, and $10 million in compensatory and/or punitive damages.
On this appeal, AFRP argues principally that the court should not have dismissed its complaint (1) because it alleges constitutional violations that are not within the province of the NRAB, and (2) because Amtrak's policy "mandates false arrest and excessive force" by Amtrak policemen and thereby "deprives innocent persons of their constitutional and common law rights and protections." For the reasons below, we conclude that AFRP's claims of injury to Amtrak policemen fail to state any claim, other than one within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NRAB, on which relief can be granted by the federal courts, and that as to the claim that the policy violates the rights of homeless persons, AFRP lacks standing.
AFRP alleges four types of injury to its members: (1) risk of physical injury to those who attempt to enforce Amtrak's policy of ejecting the homeless, (2) emotional injury, pain, and suffering, (3) exposure to civil liability for enforcing the policy, and (4) risk of discipline or loss of employment for failing to enforce it. The first two are insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court; the third is premature and speculative; and the fourth, to the extent that it is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NRAB, is insufficient to state a claim.
AFRP's claim that Amtrak's policy exposes its members to physical injury is based on the premise that the persons Amtrak policemen seek to eject from Penn Station will respond with violence. The premise is insufficient to support a claim on which relief can be granted. Violent resistance to police orders would of course be unlawful, and no basis has been presented for believing that the routine response of a homeless person to an ejectment order would be violence. The Supreme Court has ruled that a claim based on speculation that a given class of persons will engage in unlawful conduct must be dismissed. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103, 105-06, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665-67, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) ().
To the extent that AFRP is seeking damages for actual past physical injuries, the complaint is insufficient for at least two reasons. First, there are no allegations of any specific act of violence. More importantly, where, as here, any injury would have been peculiar to the individual policeman, the union has no standing to seek damages on behalf of its members. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 515-16, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2213-14, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).
The principal impetus for this lawsuit, termed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SUN CITY TAXPAYERS'ASS'N v. Citizens Utilities Co.
... ... Orthomolecular Nutrition Inst., Inc., 751 F.2d 555, 562 (2d Cir.1985). In an action ... 40 v. Insurance Corp. of America, 919 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir.1990); Allnet, 806 F.2d at 1095-97; American Fed'n of R.R. Police, Inc. (AFRP) v. National ... Passenger Corp. (AMTRAK), 832 F.2d 14, 16 (2d Cir.1987); ... ...
-
In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation
...damages claims as "obviously correct," because individualized proof of injuries was required); Am. Fed'n of R.R. Police, Inc. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 832 F.2d 14, 16 (2d Cir.1987) (dismissing association plaintiff's damages claim based on physical injury because any injury that occur......
-
Merola v. National R. Passenger Corp.
... ... , Anthony Merola, was a sergeant on the police force of the National Railroad Passenger ion ("Amtrak"). He seeks damages from defendants Amtrak; ... Kamen v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 791 F.2d 1006, 1010-11 ... Pan American World Airways, Inc., 789 F.2d 139, 140-41 (2d Cir.1986) (per ... E.g., American Federation of Railroad Police (AFRP) v. National Railroad ... ...
-
Kraus v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
... ... position after having directed three passenger trains down an out-of-service track. He returned ... defendant and plaintiffs' union, the American 723 F. Supp. 1077 Train Dispatchers ... disputes" can only be resolved by the National Railroad Adjustment Board ("NRAB") pursuant to ... Reed v. National Airlines, Inc., 524 F.2d 456, 458-59 (5th Cir.1975). See ... E.g., American Federation of Railroad Police (AFRP) v. National Railroad ssenger Corp. (Amtrak), 832 F.2d 14, 17 (2d Cir.1987) (Amtrak police ... ...