Carter v. Chief of Police, 18291.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 18291.,18291. |
| Citation | 437 F.2d 413 |
| Parties | Carl H. CARTER, Appellant, v. CHIEF OF POLICE et al. of Red Bank, New Jersey, Vincent Keuper, Prosecutor, Monmouth County, New Jersey, George F. Kugler, Attorney General, New Jersey. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Carl H. Carter, pro se.
Joseph T. Maloney, Eugene T. Urbaniak, Division of Legal Affairs, Trenton, N.J., for N.J. Atty. Gen.
Elliot L. Katz, Arnold B. Levin, Asst. Prosecutors, Freehold, N. J., for Vincent Keuper.
Martin M. Barger, Samuel Carotenuto, Reussille, Cornwell, Mausner & Carotenuto, Red Bank, N.J., for Chief of Police.
Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and FREEDMAN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.
The district court dismissed the appellant's pro se civil complaint on the ground that it does not state a cause of action against any of the defendants for vindication of such civil rights as are comprehended by section 1343(3) of title 28, United States Code and section 1983 of title 42 upon which the complaint is based. In addition to reviewing that order, we also consider a related order denying the appellant's request that a statutory 3-judge court be convened to hear this case.
The defendants named in the complaint are Arthur Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey at the time of the events in suit, and Vincent Keuper, Prosecutor of Monmouth County. The complaint also lists as a defendant, without naming him, the "Chief of Police of Red Bank, New Jersey." And during the pendency of this appeal, at the appellant's request, George F. Kugler, who succeeded Arthur Sills as Attorney General of New Jersey, was added as a party to the litigation.
The wrongs alleged in the complaint relate to an arrest of the plaintiff by Red Bank, New Jersey, police officers followed by an unsuccessful prosecution in a New Jersey state court on a charge of forgery and conspiracy to defraud. Injunctive relief is sought against harassment through further prosecution. There is no prayer for damages. The plaintiff also seeks the return of unspecified property allegedly taken from him.
The complaint specifies no wrongdoing on the part of Attorney General Sills or his successor, Attorney General Kugler. While it is alleged that Red Bank city police officers maliciously arrested the plaintiff and that the local authorities prosecuted him, the Attorney General of New Jersey is connected with this only by an allegation that his office has general supervision over law enforcement within the state. There is not even any allegation to indicate a basis for belief that the Attorney General condoned the alleged misconduct of local law enforcement officers or that it is likely to be repeated, with or without his sanction. Thus, the complaint alleges nothing that, if proved, would constitute a basis for enjoining either Attorney General under the provisions of procedural section 1343(3) of title 28 and the underlying substantive section 1983 of title 42....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman & Bass, PA v. State of NJ Com'n of Invest.
...Cir. 1971); Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F.2d 560 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 400 U.S. 841, 91 S.Ct. 82, 27 L.Ed.2d 75 (1969); Carter v. Chief of Police, 437 F.2d 413 (3d Cir. 1971). The doctrine adopted in this line of cases, eventually rejected in Lynch, took root from Justice Stone's concurring opi......
-
Kravitz v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, s. 76-1390
...they personally had anything to do with it. Under these circumstances, no claim for relief is stated against them. Carter v. Chief of Police, 437 F.2d 413 (3d Cir. 1971). The judgments under review are GIBBONS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. These appeals involve the judgment preclusion effect ......
-
Phillips v. Fisher
...right. Atkins v. Lanning, 556 F.2d 485, 489 (10th Cir. 1977); Wells v. Ward, 470 F.2d 1185, 1187 (10th Cir. 1972); Carter v. Chief of Police, 437 F.2d 413, 415 (3d Cir. 1971) (unlawful detention of Several additional contentions are contained in defendants' motions to dismiss but in light o......
-
Parker v. Stiles, CIVIL ACTION No. 00-5334 (E.D. Pa. 6/29/2001)
...is no suggestion that any further state proceedings, improper or otherwise, are pending or imminent. See, e.g., Carter v. Chief of Police, 437 F.2d 413, 415 (3d Cir. 1971); Panayotides v. Rabenold, 35 F. Supp.2d 411, 417 (E.D.Pa. 1999).2 It is also clear that neither Mr. Sarcione nor any ot......