Ball v. Yarborough
Decision Date | 30 August 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 17852.,17852. |
Citation | 281 F.2d 789 |
Parties | Billy BALL, Appellant, v. Joe YARBOROUGH, as an Individual and as President of the City Council of Perry, Florida, and Moye Construction Company, of Perry and Deland, Florida, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Robert L. Cork, Valdosta, Ga., for appellant.
W. Dexter Douglass, Tallahassee, Fla., Bryon Butler, John S. Burton, Perry, Fla., for appellees.
Before CAMERON, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal by Billy Ball, plaintiff below, is from a dismissal for want of jurisdiction of his complaint as amended, charging appellees, defendants below, with a conspiracy which prevented him from enjoying his federal rights as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981-1985. The court first dismissed the complaint and permitted appellant to amend and then dismissed the complaint as amended. The sole question presented is whether the complaint, as amended, stated a violation of appellant's "Civil Rights" as guaranteed to him by "the Federal Law and by the Statutes."
Appellant instituted this action against the appellees, Joe Yarborough, as an individual and as President of the City Council of Perry, Florida, and the Moye Construction Company, seeking to recover damages in the amount of $4,077.50 allegedly sustained when the appellees conspired to terminate appellant's employment by appellee Moye in violation of his federally guaranteed rights. It was alleged that appellee Yarborough was acting under color of office and color of authority of the City Council of Perry, Florida at the time he entered into the conspiracy with the officers of Moye to have appellant discharged from Moye's employment subsequent to, and by reason of, his appearance in court as a witness against the chief of police of Perry, Florida. It was further alleged that Yarborough had threatened to procure the discharge of appellant if he did so testify.
The court below heard the complaint, as amended, and entered an order dismissing it because the facts alleged did not sustain federal jurisdiction.1
1 The reasons for the dismissal, as stated in the final order, are these:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heiskala v. JOHNSON SPACE CTR. CREDIT U.
...as governmental action. There is no federal right not to be discharged for criticizing one's private employer. See, Ball v. Yarborough, 281 F.2d 789 (5th Cir. 1960). However, the First Amendment does limit the reasons for which a public employee can be discharged. See, Pickering v. Board of......
-
Friends of Yosemite v. Frizzell
...Plaintiffs have no federal right, however, not to be discharged for criticizing their private employer. See Ball v. Yarborough, 281 F.2d 789 (5 Cir. 1960) (no federal jurisdiction where employee allegedly dismissed for testimony at a trial). Plaintiffs' reliance upon Pickering v. Board of E......
-
Waters v. Paschen Contractors, Inc.
...protected in this particular suit. And I don't mean by that that it can't be in a proper suit. This view was stated in Ball v. Yarborough, (5th Cir., 1960), 281 F.2d 789 where the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that there is no federal right to employment guaranteed by th......
-
Mosher v. Beirne
...civil rights of plaintiffs, do not give rise to the cause of action claimed; * * *." In accord with McGuire v. Todd, supra, see Ball v. Yarborough, 281 F.2d 789. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted on this alleged cause of action under, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. However, this judgm......