Copley v. Sweet, Civ. A. No. 2630.

• Decision Date: 13 July 1955
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 2630.
• Citation: 133 F. Supp. 502
• Parties: Marvin COPLEY, Plaintiff, v. Lucien F. SWEET, Raymond W. Fox, John M. Pikkaart, Ray Cleveland, Eric V. Brown, and William Sykes, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

133 F. Supp. 502

Marvin COPLEY, Plaintiff, v. Lucien F. SWEET, Raymond W. Fox, John M. Pikkaart, Ray Cleveland, Eric V. Brown, and William Sykes, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 2630.

United States District Court W. D. Michigan, S. D.

July 13, 1955.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Marvin Copley in pro. per.

Farrell, Folz, Paulson & Palmer and Richard H. Paulson, Kalamazoo, Mich., for Lucien F. Sweet.

Fox, Fox & Thompson and Gould Fox, Kalamazoo, Mich., for Raymond W. Fox.

Benjamin W. Wise, Kalamazoo, Mich., for William Sykes.

Robert J. Barber, Kalamazoo, Mich., for John M. Pikkaart.

Morris & Culver and David Morris, Kalamazoo, Mich., for Ray Cleveland.

Eric V. Brown, Kalamazoo, Mich., in pro. per.

STARR, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff Marvin Copley, an inmate of the State prison of southern Michigan serving a life sentence for first-degree murder, filed complaint in forma pauperis in this court against the defendants, present and former public officials of the city and county of Kalamazoo, asking for money damages in the amount of one million seven hundred thousand dollars.

It appears that in January, 1945, upon jury trial in which he was represented by defendant Eric V. Brown as court-appointed counsel, plaintiff Copley was convicted of first-degree murder and on January 18th of that year he was sentenced by the late George V. Weimer, circuit judge of Kalamazoo county, to life imprisonment. The defendants have filed as exhibits in this case certified transcripts of plaintiff's preliminary examination before a municipal justice, and of his jury trial in circuit court, and a copy of the record of his conviction and sentence.

Defendant Raymond W. Fox, now a circuit judge of Kalamazoo county, was the prosecuting attorney of that county in 1945 and represented the People of the State of Michigan in the prosecution and trial of plaintiff Copley. There is no showing or claim that as circuit judge he has had any connection whatever with plaintiff's subsequent proceedings to obtain a new trial. Defendant Lucien F. Sweet is now one of the circuit judges of Kalamazoo county, and from the plaintiff's complaint and briefs it appears that he has heard and denied the plaintiff's motions for a new trial. It appears that sometime subsequent to plaintiff's trial and conviction defendant John M. Pikkaart was prosecuting attorney of Kalamazoo county and that as prosecuting attorney he appeared in opposition to plaintiff's motions for a new trial. Defendant Ray Cleveland was a detective in the police department of the city of Kalamazoo at the time of plaintiff's trial in 1945 and testified for the prosecution. Defendant Eric V. Brown was the court-appointed counsel for plaintiff and represented him in his jury trial. Sometime subsequent to plaintiff's conviction and sentence defendant William Sykes was an assistant prosecuting attorney of Kalamazoo county. However, plaintiff makes no showing that defendant Sykes had any connection with his trial and conviction or with his subsequent proceedings to obtain a new trial.

Plaintiff's complaint, which he apparently prepared himself, is a hodgepodge of conclusions and generalities without specification of particular facts as a basis for his conclusions. However, he is a layman and the court, in attempting to determine whether he states a claim under the Federal civil rights statutes upon which relief could be granted, should view his allegations as liberally as possible. In Whiting v. Seyfrit, 7 Cir., 203 F.2d 773, 774, in considering plaintiff's complaint in an action for damages against State officers, the court said:

"Plaintiff apparently is a layman. We shall construe the complaint as broadly as possible to ascertain if, under any construction of the language used, a claim is stated upon which relief can be granted.

"Although plaintiff makes a general allegation that he has been damaged as a result of a conspiracy by the defendants, it clearly appears from the complaint taken as a whole, as well as the arguments made in his brief, that he is endeavoring to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act."

See also Morgan v. Sylvester, D.C., 125 F.Supp. 380, 383.

Viewing the allegations of the complaint in the most favorable light, plaintiff is apparently endeavoring to allege a claim under the Federal civil rights statutes on the ground that the defendants conspired together, in violation of his constitutional rights, to cause his conviction, sentence, and imprisonment. He bases Federal-court jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 as amended, which provides:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

"(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;

"(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

"(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States."

Plaintiff bases his right to recover damages in the present action on 42 U.S. C.A. § 1983 (formerly 8 U.S.C.A. § 43) and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3) (formerly 8 U.S.C.A. § 473), which provide:

§ 1983: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

§ 1985(3): "If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; * * * in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators."

Plaintiff also bases his right to recover damages on 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 241 and 242.¹ However, these statutory provisions provide only for punishment by fine or imprisonment for the deprivation of certain Federal rights, privileges or immunities therein referred to, and it is clear that they have no application to the plaintiff's present civil action for money damages. Horn v. Peck, D.C., 130 F.Supp. 536, 539, 540; Gordon v. Garrson, D.C., 77 F.Supp. 477, 479. Plaintiff also appears to base his claim on Comp. Laws Mich.1948, §§ 764.13 and 764.26, which provide:

§ 764.13: "A peace officer who has arrested a person without a warrant must without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before the most convenient magistrate of the county in which the offense was committed, and must make before the magistrate a complaint, stating the offense for which the person was arrested."

§ 764.26: "Every person charged with a felony shall, without unnecessary delay after his arrest, be taken before a magistrate or other judicial officer and, after being informed as to his rights, shall be given an opportunity publicly to make any statement and answer any questions regarding the charge that he may desire to answer."

However, plaintiff makes no showing of any violation by any of the defendants of the requirements of these State statutes, and examination of the certified transcripts of his preliminary examination and of his jury trial clearly indicates that the requirements of the State statutes were properly complied with.

The plaintiff also alleges violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. However, the law has long been established that the Sixth Amendment relates only to Federal criminal procedure and is not applicable to trials in State courts. Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 324, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288; Gaines v. State of Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 48 S.Ct. 468, 72 L.Ed. 793; Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 208 U.S. 481, 28 S.Ct. 372, 52 L.Ed. 582; Jack v. State of Kansas, 199 U.S. 372, 26 S.Ct. 73, 50 L.Ed. 234; Spies v. People of State of Illinois, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S.Ct. 22, 31 L.Ed. 80. See also authorities cited in U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 6. Plaintiff also refers to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, but he makes no showing of facts indicating, or from which it could be inferred, that he was deprived of due process of law or equal protection of the laws. In fact, the certified transcripts of his preliminary examination and jury trial clearly show that he was accorded due process of law and equal protection of the laws.

Each of the defendants has filed a motion to dismiss the present action upon the ground, among others, that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the civil rights statutes. The plaintiff has filed answer to these...