Camp v. Herzog, 10774.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 10774.,10774. |
| Citation | 190 F.2d 605 |
| Parties | CAMP v. HERZOG et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., with whom William R. Consedine, Associate Solicitor, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON, and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, a member of the bar of Texas, seeks to enjoin appellees, members of the National Labor Relations Board, from proceeding with a hearing to determine whether disbarment or "other appropriate disciplinary action" should be taken against him. The Board hearing grew out of a charge by its General Counsel that appellant, while appearing as counsel in a proceeding before a trial examiner of the Board, committed an unprovoked physical assault of an aggravated character upon a Board attorney. In seeking judicial intervention to forestall the hearing, appellant alleges that the Board is not authorized, either expressly or impliedly, to conduct disciplinary proceedings against him, and that even if it did possess some such inherent power, it has not exercised that power in the manner required by § 3(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act.1 Thus, he rests his claim for relief not only upon general principles of equity but also upon the ground that under § 10(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act,2 appellees' repeated refusals to discontinue the disciplinary proceeding constitute illegal "final agency action" which will result in irreparable damage for which he has no other adequate remedy.
We agree with the court below that this suit must fail. Whether the Board inherently possesses the requisite authority to discipline those who practice before it or possesses such authority as a necessary incident to the powers conferred upon it by its governing statute is a question which should be answered by the Board in the first instance. If given such an opportunity, it may resolve this as well as the other procedural issues in appellant's favor. And even if they should be decided against him, the Board may conclude on the merits to take no disciplinary action. In either event, judicial relief may ultimately prove unnecessary. We do not think that, under the circumstances of this case, the nature of the injury alleged by appellant warrants relaxation of the rule that administrative remedies must be exhausted before judicial relief may be sought.3
Affirmed.
1 § 3 of the Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1002, provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Loan Bank Board v. Mallonee
...the extent of its jurisdiction and to deal in a final way with matters falling within its reach, see comments in Camp v. Herzog, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 190 F.2d 605 and S. S. W., Inc. v. Air Transport Ass'n of America, D.C.Cir., 191 F.2d The suggestion about "postponement" of review until rev......
-
Woodard v. Broadway Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of LosAngeles
...to determine the extent of its jurisdiction and to decide in a final way matters falling therein is discussed in Camp v. Herzog, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 190 F.2d 605, and S.S.W., Inc. v. Air Transport Ass'n of America, D.C.Cir., 191 F.2d 658. See, also, Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 245, 67 S.Ct. 155......
-
McDevitt v. Gunn
...U.S. 32, 44-45, 19 S.Ct. 90, 43 L.Ed. 354; White v. Johnson, 1930, 282 U.S. 367, 374, 51 S.Ct. 115, 75 L.Ed. 388; Camp v. Herzog, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 190 F.2d 605, 606. In the Myers case, an employer sought to enjoin the National Labor Relations Board from holding a hearing upon a co......
-
Smith v. Murphy D. C. 357, 6285.
...have not presented a case for relaxation of the ordinary rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Camp v. Herzog, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 190 F.2d 605 (1951). The contrasting holding in Public Utilities Commission v. United States, 355 U.S. 534, 78 S.Ct. 446, 2 L.Ed.2d 470 (19......