Ginsburg v. Stern, 11499.
| Decision Date | 02 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 11499.,11499. |
| Citation | 225 F.2d 245 |
| Parties | Paul GINSBURG, Appellant, v. Horace STERN and Patrick N. Bolsinger. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Paul Ginsburg, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Elder W. Marshall, Pittsburgh, Pa., Carl E. Glock, Jr., Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel, for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS, GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff, Paul Ginsburg, as the court below found, has not stated a cause of action cognizable in a United States District Court under the Civil Rights Acts now embodied in 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, or under any other statute or rule of law. This is said without regard to the issue as to whether or not Ginsburg may maintain the suit against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or the Prothonotary of that Court under our decision in Picking v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 3 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 240. We therefore will affirm the judgment of the court below on the ground stated. 125 F.Supp. 596. We refrain expressly, however, from any determination as to whether the Picking decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States by Tenney v. Brandhove, 1951, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L. Ed. 1019.
As to the motions made by the defendants to expunge a portion of the plaintiff's brief as indicated by the motion filed herein on April 19, 1955, we are of the opinion that the matter complained of is at least a technical violation of our order of January 4, 1955. We therefore will direct the Clerk of this court to expunge the material referred to from all copies of the brief now in the Clerk's office. We shall not require all copies of the brief to be returned to the plaintiff and a new brief, omitting the words referred to, to be filed by the plaintiff.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Jennings
...818, 72 S.Ct. 32, 96 L.Ed. 618; Bottone v. Lindsley, 10 Cir., 170 F.2d 705, 707; Ginsburg v. Stern, D.C., 125 F.Supp. 596, affirmed 3 Cir., 225 F.2d 245; Gordon v. Garrson, D.C., 77 F.Supp. 477; 68 Harvard Law Review (May 1955) pp. 1229-1240. See also opinions of this court in Kenney v. Kil......
-
Starr v. Mandanici
...court's refusal to act, this court adopted the Third Circuit's analysis in Ginsburg v. Stern, 125 F.Supp. 596 (W.D.Pa.1954), aff'd, 225 F.2d 245 (3d Cir.1955) Plaintiff's petition, just as any other complaint of professional misconduct, merely supplied information for the court's considerat......
-
Bauers v. Heisel
...1962), aff'd per curiam, 316 F.2d 236 (C.A.3, 1963); Ginsburg v. Stern, 125 F.Supp. 596 (W.D.Pa., 1954), aff'd on other grounds, 225 F.2d 245 (C.A.3, 1955). Though we choose to make an independent analysis of the issue before us, our rationale differs little from what was said in Tate v. Ar......
-
Raitport v. Provident Nat. Bank
...v. Stern, 125 F.Supp. 596 (W.D.Pa.1954) (Prothonotary of Superior Court of Pennsylvania), aff'd per curiam on other grounds, 225 F.2d 245 (3d Cir. 1955) (en banc). In both Lockhart and Ginsburg, however, the prothonotaries were sued for refusing to docket certain papers, rather than for doc......