Griffin v. Connally
| Decision Date | 25 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 8670. |
| Citation | 127 F. Supp. 203 |
| Parties | Frederick GRIFFIN, Sr., Plaintiff, v. Ben C. CONNALLY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Frederick Griffin, Sr., Houston, Tex., pro se.
David Searls and Leon Jaworski, Houston, Tex., for defendant.
In this suit plaintiff, Frederick Griffin, Sr., sues Ben C. Connally, one of the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The basis of the complaint is that Griffin had previously filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against Philander Smith College, its officers and trustees, all of Little Rock, Arkansas, in which suit Judge Ben C. Connally, acting in his capacity as United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, first, sustained a motion of defendants in such suit to quash service of process, and later sustained a motion of the defendants therein to dismiss the suit; and in the present suit plaintiff Griffin sues Judge Connally, complaining of his actions in dismissing the former suit and praying "for one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars ($125,000) personal damages; And temporary injunction, permanent injunction and declaratory judgment against the defendant to the extent of demanding the defendant to rehear the referred to cause of action, rendering fair and impartial justice and to render such justice throughout the proceedings of said cause; plus cost of court." The present suit is now before the court on two motions (1) by plaintiff for change of venue to the Southern District of New York and (2) by defendant to dismiss.
Plaintiff's motion for change of any venue to the Southern District of New York avers that he strongly feels that he will not be given a fair and impartial trial in this court. Plaintiff chose his forum when he filed his suit. Both plaintiff and defendant reside at Houston in the Southern District of Texas. The reason claimed for change of venue is not found in the statute governing change of venue, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404. To transfer a case to the Southern District of New York, wherein both parties reside in this district and the matters complained of occurred in this district, would not be for the "convenience" of the forum. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1406 provides that the district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district * * * may transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought. This case could not have been properly brought in the Southern District of New York as the defendant could not have been found there for service.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. United Air Lines, Inc.
...145 F.Supp. 447, the Court refused to split the plaintiff's cause of action and transfer only a part of the suit. In Griffin v. Connally (S.D. Texas), 127 F. Supp. 203, the action was dismissed on the ground that the complaint did not state a claim for It is noted that the Paris case agains......
-
Niklaus v. Simmons, Civ. No. 305-L.
...D.C.Mich., 132 F.Supp. 305; Bottone v. Lindsley, 10 Cir., 170 F.2d 705; Francis v. Lyman, D.C.Mass., 108 F.Supp. 884; Griffin v. Connally, D.C.Tex., 127 F.Supp. 203; Ravenscroft v. Casey, 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 776; Dinneen v. Williams, 9 Cir., 219 F. 2d 428 (which, however, is actually decided u......
-
Copley v. Sweet, Civ. A. No. 2630.
...Eaton v. Bibb, 7 Cir., 217 F.2d 446; Cawley v. Warren, 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 74; Francis v. Lyman, 1 Cir., 216 F.2d 583; Griffin v. Connally, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 203; Ginsburg v. Stern, supra, 125 F.Supp. 596; Dunn v. Estes, D.C., 117 F.Supp. 146; 43 Am.Jur. § 274, page 86. See also the opinion of......
-
Thornton v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.
...issuing out of that court. Moore's, supra, ¶ 0.1465, cf. ¶ 0.1456.-1; Annotation, 3 A.L.R. Fed. 467, §§ 18-20 (1970); Griffin v. Connally, 127 F.Supp. 203 (S.D.Tex.1955); See also Smith v. Murchison, 310 F. Supp. 1079 (S.D.N.Y.1970); cf. Harry Rich Corporation v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation,......