Carter v. Romines

Decision Date01 December 1977
Docket NumberNo. 77-1070,77-1070
Citation560 F.2d 395
PartiesAlbert H. CARTER, Appellant, v. Parvin ROMINES, Marion Thomas, and Clerk of the Circuit Court of Crittenden County, Arkansas, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Albert H. Carter, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Ed W. McCorkle, Arkadelphia, Ark., filing brief for appellee, Romines.

Skillman, Durrett & Davis, West Memphis, Ark., filing brief for appellee, Thomas.

Before HEANEY, ROSS and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.


On December 30, 1976, appellant Albert Carter filed the instant complaint in the District Court. The complaint alleged that appellees and law enforcement officers acting under their direction had violated the civil rights of one Robert Lee Swanson by wrongfully withholding certain moneys and other personalty taken from Swanson subsequent to his arrest in August, 1968. Appellant further alleged that Swanson had assigned his entire interest in the cause of action to appellant. Jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1343(3).

The District Court, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that appellant was not a proper party in interest and lacked standing to assert Swanson's rights and that the underlying cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the District Court on the basis that appellant lacks standing.

Ordinarily, a party has no standing to assert the rights of third persons. See, e. g., Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 429, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961); United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22, 80 S.Ct. 519, 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960); Regents of University of Minnesota v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 560 F.2d 352 at 364 (8th Cir. 1977); Shaw v. Garrison, 545 F.2d 980, 983 n.4 (5th Cir. 1977); Tyler v. Ryan, 419 F.Supp. 905, 906 (E.D.Mo.1976); Javits v Stevens, 382 F.Supp. 131, 135 (S.D.N.Y.1974).

This general rule, like all rules, is subject to certain narrow exceptions. None of these exceptions, however, apply here. 1 The case before us is not one where the aggrieved party could not be represented in the context of the dispute before the court, Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 73 S.Ct. 1031, 97 L.Ed. 1586 (1953), where a property deprivation was the indirect result of a constitutional deprivation of an absent party, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925), where the right sought to be protected would be forfeited if the aggrieved party were forced to appear in his own behalf, N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, 360 U.S. 240, 79 S.Ct. 1001, 3 L.Ed.2d 1205 (1959), or where an adjudication of the rights of third persons is in every meaningful sense necessary to an adjudication of the constitutional controversy between the parties at bar, Regents of University of Minnesota v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, supra. In addition, the principles underlying the general rule militate against carving out an additional exception benefiting appellant. In determining whether the general rule should apply, we consider the relationship of the appellant to the person whose right he seeks to assert and the ability of the third person to assert his own right. See Singleton v. Wulff, supra, 428 U.S. at 114-16, 96 S.Ct. 2868. On this record, we doubt that appellant's relationship to Swanson is such that the former would be as effective a proponent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Carter v. Telectron, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • December 16, 1977
    ... ... 172. 12-30-76 Carter v. Parvin J-76-C-142 E.D. Ark. To recover on a cause 12-30-76: Dismissed on grounds that ... Romines, Marion of action purchased by pltf. lacks standing to assert civil ... Thomas, & Clerk of the pltf. for violation of rights of third person; ... ...
  • People of the State of Colo. v. Carter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • September 4, 1986
    ...filed at least two cases as an assignee of alleged civil rights violations which were dismissed on the same grounds. See Carter v. Romines, 560 F.2d 395 (8th Cir.1977); Carter v. Lynn, No. H 77 259, In 1985, Mr. Carter filed Carter v. Levergne Marshall, 85 F 2325, in which Mr. Carter sought......
  • Miner v. Brackney
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 28, 1983
    ...has no standing to assert. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2874, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Carter v. Romines, 560 F.2d 395 (8th Cir.1977) (per curiam) cert. denied, 436 U.S. 948, 98 S.Ct. 2854, 56 L.Ed.2d 791 (1978); Tyler v. Ryan, 419 F.Supp. 905, 906 (E.D.Mo.1976). Simm......
  • In re Preston Trucking Co., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 99-59994-JS.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • August 18, 2008
    ...however, the Eight Circuit has held that civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are not assignable. Carter v. Romines, 560 F.2d 395, 396 n. 1 (8th Cir. 1977). The Teamsters put forth a number of policy reasons why both WARN Act claims and claims under § 301 of the LMRA, like civ......
  • 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