Hardyman v. Collins, 8004-Y.
Decision Date | 04 October 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 8004-Y.,8004-Y. |
Citation | 80 F. Supp. 501 |
Parties | HARDYMAN et al. v. COLLINS et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Loren Miller, Edmund Cooke, Mortimer Vogel, Thelma Herzing, and William B. Esterman, all of Los Angeles, Cal., Jane Grodzins, of Hollywood, Cal., and A. L. Wirin, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs.
George Penney and Robert M. Newell, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.
The action is instituted under the first clause of Subdivision (3) of Section 47 of Title 8 U.S.C.A., which reads:
"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; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; 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."
The object of this enactment is to give to persons injured as the result of the three types of conspiracies it designates, a claim for damages against the participants.
It is implemented by Subdivision (1) of Section 1343 of Title 28 U.S.C.A., in effect September 1, 1948, which is a re-codification of Section 41(12) of the old Title 28 U.S.C.A., which, in turn, reads:
It is beyond dispute that the Government of the United States may exercise, within the limits of its sovereignty, and upon the soil which is a part of the United States, its powers and functions.1
From this flows the power of the Congress of the United States to secure, through criminal or civil sanctions, the protection of the rights which the Constitution guarantees to individuals. The scope of such legislation and the type of the rights to the protection of which it may be directed, is well stated in Re Quarles and Butler:2
We thus find recognition of the following as rights, privileges and immunities stemming from the Constitution of the United States: The right of assembly and to petition the Congress for redress of grievances;3 the right to discuss national legislation or national affairs4; the right to vote for presidential electors and members of the Congress5; the right to protection of person, while in the custody of an officer of the United States6; the right to engage in a profession such as the practice of law before federal courts7; the right to move from state to state.8
At the same time, invasions of purely personal rights, the protection of which is within the domain of state power, does not come under the protective shield of general national sovereignty or of statutes such as the Civil Rights Statute, a portion of which is under consideration here.9 The following rights are in this category: protection against violence when not in the custody of a federal officer10; the right of employment11; the right to exercise freedom of the press12; the right to testify before a grand jury13; the right to employment by public bodies14. The case last referred to contains a very succinct summary of the holdings we have just epitomized: (Emphasis added.)
Inherent in the problem before us is the view that, as a rule, civil rights "cannot be impaired by the wrongful acts of individuals, unsupported by state authority in the shape of laws, customs, or judicial or executive proceedings."15
This is not to say that the Congress may not, in the exercise of its constitutional power, give a right of action against individuals who conspire to interfere with the exercise of purely national rights.
We postulate that it may, and so stated at the hearing. But, in considering whether it did so in the particular instance, the language of the statute must be considered in the light of these rulings. It is to be noted that, while Section 1343 of Title 28 U.S.C.A. (the jurisdictional section) speaks of "deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States", the section creating the substantive rights16 is narrower. It makes the right of action stem from conspiracy aiming to deprive a person "of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws." (Emphasis added.)
The qualifying word "equal" presupposes State action. For, as said by Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases17: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hoffman v. Halden
...R. Co., 3 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 240; Schatte v. International Alliance etc., 9 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 158, 166. See Hardyman v. Collins, D.C.S.D.Cal. 1948, 80 F.Supp. 501 and cases collected by Judge Yankwich. The case was reversed by the Ninth Circuit in 183 F.2d 308 which was in turn reverse......
-
Koch v. Zuieback
...1253; Love v. Chandler, 8 Cir., 1942, 124 F.2d 785, 786; Byrd v. Sexton, 8 Cir., 1960, 277 F.2d 418, 426-427; Hardyman v. Collins, D.C.S.D.Cal. 1948, 80 F.Supp. 501, 505-506. Therefore, although the Civil Rights statutes in general and § 1985(3) in particular are extremely broadly phrased, ......
-
Griffin v. Breckenridge
... ... This civil rights case, ruled by the majority opinion in Collins v. Hardyman, 1 involves a racially motivated assault committed upon a public highway. Adhering as ... ...
-
Marshall v. Sawyer
...this court which had reversed Judge Yankwich, 9 Cir., 183 F.2d 308. Judge Yankwich, discussing the action, had stated, (Hardyman v. Collins, D.C., 80 F.Supp. 501, 510): "No cases exist where an action either civil or criminal has been maintained against private persons who interfered with s......