Brown v. Macy, No. 21125.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMARIS, RIVES and BROWN, Circuit
Citation340 F.2d 115
PartiesFestus J. BROWN, Appellant, v. John W. MACY, Jr., Individually and as Chairman of the U. S. Civil Service Commission, et al., Appellees.
Decision Date15 January 1965
Docket NumberNo. 21125.

340 F.2d 115 (1965)

Festus J. BROWN, Appellant,
v.
John W. MACY, Jr., Individually and as Chairman of the U. S. Civil Service Commission, et al., Appellees.

No. 21125.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

January 15, 1965.


340 F.2d 116

Jack N. Rogers, Baton Rouge, La., for appellant.

Edward Berlin, Sherman L. Cohn, Dept of Justice, Washington, D. C., John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Louis C. LaCour, U. S. Atty., for appellees.

Before MARIS,* RIVES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

MARIS, Circuit Judge:

The plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered by the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in favor of the defendants, who are the members of the United States Civil Service Commission and the United States Commissioner of Customs, respectively, in his suit seeking a declaratory judgment that his removal for political activity from office as a customs inspector by the Commissioner of Customs upon the order of the Civil Service Commission was illegally accomplished. The plaintiff asserts in this regard that he was denied the right to cross examine witnesses at his hearing before the Commission's examiner and that the charges specified in the letter of charges were improperly enlarged at his hearing. The district court could find no merit in these contentions and neither can we.

The witnesses to whom the plaintiff refers were three individuals who had made statements to a Commission investigator to which the investigator had made affidavits and to which he testified at the hearing. Copies of these affidavits were supplied to the plaintiff prior to the hearing. The Commission requested the three individuals to attend the hearing but they failed to do so. Although the plaintiff made no attempt to secure their attendance he now complains that the Commission by failing to produce them at the hearing denied him the right, which he asserts was his, to cross examine them. The issue before the district court in this case was whether under the statutes or regulations the plaintiff had a right to have the three individuals produced at his hearing for cross examination on the statements which they gave to the investigator and which the Commission considered in reaching its decision. The plaintiff concedes that the

court had no power to review the merits of his dismissal, that being a matter confided to the discretion of the executive branch of the government. Hargett v. Summerfield, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Johnson v. U.S., No. 79-1154
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 8, 1980
    ...See id. at 158. Accord, Marvin Tragash Co. v. United States Department of Agriculture, 524 F.2d 1255, 1258 (5th Cir. 1975); Brown v. Macy, 340 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1965). Congress never instructed the Commission to follow the rules of evidence as applied in the courts. Indeed, the Commis......
  • Chafin v. Pratt, No. 22343.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 13, 1966
    ...U.S. 535, 79 S.Ct. 986, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012; Service v. Dulles, 1957, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403; Brown v. Macy, 5 Cir., 1965, 340 F.2d 115; Hanifan v. United States, Ct.Cl., 1965, 354 F.2d 358 Dec. 17, 1965; Begendorf v. United States, 1965, 340 F.2d 363, 169 Ct.Cl. 293; Kleinf......
  • DEMOCRATIC ST. CENT. COM. FOR MONTGOMERY CO., MD. v. Andolsek, Civ. No. 16460.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • January 25, 1966
    ...may be had in an action under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(a), 1361 and 1391(e). See Brown v. Macy, E. D.La., 222 F.Supp. 639 (1963), aff'd 5 Cir., 340 F.2d 115 14 At the trial level in Ramspeck, Judge Laws had said: In United Public Workers v. Mitchell, supra, the action which plaintiffs sought to ......
  • Coledanchise v. Macy, Civ. A. No. 66-199.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 1967
    ...v. Day, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 314 F.2d 247 (1962); Brancadora v. Federal Nat'l Mtg. Ass'n, 344 F.2d 933 (9th Cir. 1965); Brown v. Macy, 340 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1965); Jenkins v. Macy, 357 F.2d 62 (8th Cir. 1966). In McEachern v. United States, 321 F.2d 31 (1963), the Fourth Circuit also reco......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Johnson v. U.S., No. 79-1154
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 8, 1980
    ...See id. at 158. Accord, Marvin Tragash Co. v. United States Department of Agriculture, 524 F.2d 1255, 1258 (5th Cir. 1975); Brown v. Macy, 340 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1965). Congress never instructed the Commission to follow the rules of evidence as applied in the courts. Indeed, the Commis......
  • Chafin v. Pratt, No. 22343.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 13, 1966
    ...U.S. 535, 79 S.Ct. 986, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012; Service v. Dulles, 1957, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403; Brown v. Macy, 5 Cir., 1965, 340 F.2d 115; Hanifan v. United States, Ct.Cl., 1965, 354 F.2d 358 Dec. 17, 1965; Begendorf v. United States, 1965, 340 F.2d 363, 169 Ct.Cl. 293; Kleinf......
  • DEMOCRATIC ST. CENT. COM. FOR MONTGOMERY CO., MD. v. Andolsek, Civ. No. 16460.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • January 25, 1966
    ...may be had in an action under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(a), 1361 and 1391(e). See Brown v. Macy, E. D.La., 222 F.Supp. 639 (1963), aff'd 5 Cir., 340 F.2d 115 14 At the trial level in Ramspeck, Judge Laws had said: In United Public Workers v. Mitchell, supra, the action which plaintiffs sought to ......
  • Coledanchise v. Macy, Civ. A. No. 66-199.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 1967
    ...v. Day, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 314 F.2d 247 (1962); Brancadora v. Federal Nat'l Mtg. Ass'n, 344 F.2d 933 (9th Cir. 1965); Brown v. Macy, 340 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1965); Jenkins v. Macy, 357 F.2d 62 (8th Cir. 1966). In McEachern v. United States, 321 F.2d 31 (1963), the Fourth Circuit also reco......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT