Gush v. Bunker, Civ. A. No. C-72-55.
| Court | United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee |
| Writing for the Court | WELLFORD |
| Citation | 344 F. Supp. 247 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C-72-55. |
| Parties | Thelma GUSH, Plaintiff, v. Raymond BUNKER and S. N. Anderson, Defendants. |
344 F. Supp. 247
Thelma GUSH, Plaintiff,
v.
Raymond BUNKER and S. N. Anderson, Defendants.
Civ. A. No. C-72-55.
United States District Court, W. D. Tennessee, W. D.
February 28, 1972.
Thelma Gush, pro se.
Thomas F. Turley, Jr., U. S. Atty. by Kemper B. Durand, Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., for defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
WELLFORD, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Thelma Gush, filed an action in the Court of General Sessions for Shelby County, Tennessee, against defendants, Raymond Bunker and S. N. Anderson as officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, alleging that defendants fraudulently falsified and altered certain immigration papers and documents belonging to plaintiff "constituting fraud and false pretenses". The United States of America, by the United States Attorney, certified that defendants Bunker and Anderson were acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the incidents complained of by plaintiff, and sought removal to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679, which requires the substitution of the United States of America as party defendant in these circumstances. The government has now moved the Court for an Order dismissing this action on the grounds that: (1) Suits of this nature are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity; and (2) Plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative remedies.
Initially, the Court finds that this action is one sounding in tort against the federal government and was properly removed to this Court. As we stated in Smith v. United States, 328 F.Supp. 1224, 1226 (W.D.Tenn.1971):
". . . After an action has been brought against a government employee in state court, and the Attorney General certifies . . . that said employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident, the plaintiff no longer has a right to sue the employee individually in state court; on the contrary, the plaintiff's sole and exclusive remedy is against the United States."
See also Vantrease v. United States, 400 F.2d 853 (6th Cir. 1968); Meeker v. United States, 435 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1970); Hoch v. Carter, 242 F.Supp. 863 (D.C.N.Y.1965).
28 U.S.C. § 2679 reads as follows:
"(d) upon a certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his employment . . . any . . . civil action . . . commenced in a State court shall be removed without bond . . . to the district court . . . and the proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laborers' Intern. Union of North America, Local Union No. 309, AFL-CIO v. W.W. Bennett Const. Co., Inc., AFL-CI
...for selection of an arbitrator by the same method. Other courts, however, have not viewed this as a problem. See, e.g., Scottex, 344 F.Supp. at 247; Edmos, 80 L.R.R.M. at 3227. See also Bernstein, 78 Harv.L.Rev. at 796, wherein the author contends that the consensual foundation of arbitrati......
-
Textile Workers Union of America v. Scottex Corp., No. 72 Civ. 1357
...is a generalized code to govern a broad spectrum of problems, grievances and disputes which cannot be wholly anticipated by black 344 F. Supp. 247 letter law or indeed even by the draftsman of the collective bargaining agreements in question. See United Steel Workers of America v. Warrior &......
-
Laborers' Intern. Union of North America, Local Union No. 309, AFL-CIO v. W.W. Bennett Const. Co., Inc., AFL-CI
...for selection of an arbitrator by the same method. Other courts, however, have not viewed this as a problem. See, e.g., Scottex, 344 F.Supp. at 247; Edmos, 80 L.R.R.M. at 3227. See also Bernstein, 78 Harv.L.Rev. at 796, wherein the author contends that the consensual foundation of arbitrati......
-
Textile Workers Union of America v. Scottex Corp., No. 72 Civ. 1357
...is a generalized code to govern a broad spectrum of problems, grievances and disputes which cannot be wholly anticipated by black 344 F. Supp. 247 letter law or indeed even by the draftsman of the collective bargaining agreements in question. See United Steel Workers of America v. Warrior &......