Drexler v. Walters, No. 4-67 Civ. 390.
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota |
| Writing for the Court | Thomas A. Keller, III, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant Joe A. Walters |
| Citation | 290 F. Supp. 150 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-67 Civ. 390. |
| Decision Date | 23 September 1968 |
| Parties | William E. DREXLER, Plaintiff, v. Joe A. WALTERS, Individually, and as Referee and Receiver, James P. Rorris and Robert W. Dygert, and Dygert and Gunn, a partnership, and Faye V. Peterson, Defendants. |
290 F. Supp. 150
William E. DREXLER, Plaintiff,
v.
Joe A. WALTERS, Individually, and as Referee and Receiver, James P. Rorris and Robert W. Dygert, and Dygert and Gunn, a partnership, and Faye V. Peterson, Defendants.
No. 4-67 Civ. 390.
United States District Court D. Minnesota, Fourth Div.
September 23, 1968.
Thomas A. Keller, III, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant Joe A. Walters.
Harold J. Carroll, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant James P. Rorris.
Melvin D. Heckt, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants Robert W. Dygert and Dygert & Gunn, Minneapolis, Minn., a partnership.
Robert W. Dygert, Esq., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant Faye V. Peterson.
NEVILLE, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on the defendants' motion to dismiss. The complaint, though somewhat unclear and generally conclusionary, attempts to state a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For reasons stated below, the motions to dismiss as to all defendants are granted.
The complaint alleges that defendant Joe A. Walters, acting as Referee and Receiver by appointment of the District Court, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota in a divorce action pending in that court entitled Peterson v. Peterson (#566224), together with defendant Faye V. Peterson and her attorneys, James P. Rorris and Robert W. Dygert,
By motion, defendants contend that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that this court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, that the allegations of the complaint are sham and frivolous and that the events complained of were done pursuant to, and are hence an improper and unwarranted attack upon, the orders of the Minnesota district court.1
From the pleadings and records it appears that plaintiff was attorney for one Palmer A Peterson, a practicing physician and surgeon, who became a defendant in a State court divorce action brought by his wife, defendant Faye V. Peterson, who was represented by defendants Rorris and Dygert as attorneys. Apparently after rather lengthy proceedings, the Hennepin County District Court in which that action was pending appointed defendant Walters Receiver of all the personal estate of Palmer A. Peterson and also appointed him Referee. The court's order, dated January 11, 1965 recited that Walters should have "all the power and authority of a Receiver under the statutes and common law of Minnesota" and as Referee should have "all the power and authority granted by Rule 53 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure or any other applicable rules or statutes of the State of Minnesota."
Specifically the court empowered the Receiver as follows:
"3. That without limiting the powers, duties and authorities above granted to said Receiver and Referee, he is specifically authorized and directed as follows:
(a) Said Receiver and Referee shall forthwith take into his possession all of the financial records of the defendant, Palmer A. Peterson, including, but not by way of limitation, all of said defendant's books of account, daily or other records of patients seen and services rendered, account receivable records, duplicate deposit records, bank and savings account records, and records of securities.
(b) Said Receiver and Referee shall proceed with all reasonable dispatch to collect all accounts receivable of defendant, Palmer A. Peterson, and to take whatever legal or other action may be deemed necessary or advisable to enforce collection thereof.
(c) Said Receiver and Referee shall take into his possession all securities held by defendant, Palmer A. Peterson, or in his name, and all bank or savings accounts in his name or under his control in any domestic or foreign banks, savings and loan associations or other financial institutions.
(d) Said Receiver and Referee shall make such investigation, in-concluding the issuing of subpoenas and the taking of testimony of any witnesses if deemed by him to be appropriate, as he may deem necessary and advisable to ascertain the nature and amount of the personal estate of the defendant, Palmer A. Peterson.
(e) Upon receiving any assets of value, said Receiver and Referee shall apply to this Court for its further Order fixing his bond. Until
said Receiver and Referee receives any property of monetary value, no bond shall be required."
Pursuant to his appointment, Walters sequestered the personal estate of Palmer A. Peterson. In doing so he subpoenaed Sigurd A. Bertelsen, Post-master, St. Paul, and all the contents of Airport Post Office Box #1503 which was in plaintiff's name, but allegedly used by Palmer Peterson, plaintiff's client, as a reception point for his medical patients' accounts receivable which Peterson allegedly desired to keep hidden because of the State court's alimony order. On March 23, 1965 (following a hearing on February 17, 1965), Judge Kane ordered that all mail accumulated to that date be opened and the payments on Peterson's accounts receivable be turned over to the Receiver. This apparently was done. These actions constitute the gravamen of plaintiff's present complaint.
Since plaintiff claims both injunctive relief and recovery of damages, several questions are presented.
Claim for Damages Against Walters
The motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint as against defendant Walters, as Referee and Receiver must be granted on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R. Civ.P. 12 (b) (6). Plaintiff's complaint (Paragraph IV) affirmatively alleges that defendant Walters "is and has been acting as a Referee and Receiver of the District Court, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota." Plaintiff further alleges that defendant committed the specific acts complained of while acting in those capacities (Paragraph VII). As against an officer of the Minnesota State Courts, this court can grant no relief, injunctive or for damages, and hence the complaint is dismissed as to Walters.
It is the rule in Minnesota that a receiver is an officer or representative of the court which appointed him subject to the control of that court. Peterson v. Darelius, 168 Minn. 365, 368, 210 N.W. 38, 39 (1926). Likewise, a referee is a subordinate of the appointing court. See Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn. 78 (1860).
Further, Minnesota courts have long recognized the rule that judges and those acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial2 capacity are immune from civil liability for damages. The policy behind the rule is to insure that such officers will act upon their convictions free from any apprehension of possible consequences. Cf. Gammel v. Ernst and Ernst, 245 Minn. 249, 72 N.W. 2d 364, 368, 54 A.L.R.2d 316 (1955). The desirability of such freedom of judicial action applies equally to court-appointed referees and receivers, and brings them within the cloak of judicial immunity.
Plaintiff does not allege that defendant Walters acted beyond the scope of his appointment as referee and receiver, nor does he allege that the Hennepin County District Court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the lawsuit for which Walters was appointed. In any event, and even if he had, the shield of judicial immunity has been held to extend to all judicial and quasi-judicial acts, however erroneous. Roerig v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 231, 175 N.W. 542 (1919). Any other
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v. United States, No. 3-70-Civ-177.
...of possible consequences. * * * The shield of judicial immunity has been held to extend to all judicial and quasi-Drexler v. Walters, 290 F.Supp. 150, judicial acts, however erroneous." 154 Although the Minnesota courts may not have extended quasi-judicial immunity to lesser state officials......
-
Kisting v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company, No. 67-C-27.
...underlying a finding of waiver in such a case. A much larger number of cases are in accord with Engebretson v. Hekla Fire Insurance 290 F. Supp. 150 Co., supra, in holding no waiver where the denial of liability occurs after the period for filing proofs of loss has elapsed. See J. T. Knight......
-
Seibel v. Kemble, No. 6546
...act without apprehension of possible adverse consequences, apply equally to court-appointed officials. The court in Drexler v. Walters, 290 F.Supp. 150, 154 (D.Minn.1968), Further, Minnesota courts have long recognized the rule that judges and those acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial ca......
-
American Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Statesman Insurance Co., No. 4-71 Civ. 463.
...divested by the court of coordinate jurisdiction. Bruce v. Manchester and Ky. R. R., C.C., 1 Cir. 19 F. 342 (1884).' Drexler v. Walters, 290 F.Supp. 150, 156 (D.Minn.1968)." See also Holley v. General American Life Ins. Co., 101 F.2d 172, 174 (8th Cir. 1939), which states: "Moreover, it is ......
-
Savage v. United States, No. 3-70-Civ-177.
...of possible consequences. * * * The shield of judicial immunity has been held to extend to all judicial and quasi-Drexler v. Walters, 290 F.Supp. 150, judicial acts, however erroneous." 154 Although the Minnesota courts may not have extended quasi-judicial immunity to lesser state officials......
-
Kisting v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company, No. 67-C-27.
...underlying a finding of waiver in such a case. A much larger number of cases are in accord with Engebretson v. Hekla Fire Insurance 290 F. Supp. 150 Co., supra, in holding no waiver where the denial of liability occurs after the period for filing proofs of loss has elapsed. See J. T. Knight......
-
Seibel v. Kemble, No. 6546
...act without apprehension of possible adverse consequences, apply equally to court-appointed officials. The court in Drexler v. Walters, 290 F.Supp. 150, 154 (D.Minn.1968), Further, Minnesota courts have long recognized the rule that judges and those acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial ca......
-
American Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Statesman Insurance Co., No. 4-71 Civ. 463.
...divested by the court of coordinate jurisdiction. Bruce v. Manchester and Ky. R. R., C.C., 1 Cir. 19 F. 342 (1884).' Drexler v. Walters, 290 F.Supp. 150, 156 (D.Minn.1968)." See also Holley v. General American Life Ins. Co., 101 F.2d 172, 174 (8th Cir. 1939), which states: "Moreover, it is ......