Jones v. Warlick, 10340.
| Decision Date | 01 August 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 10340.,10340. |
| Citation | 364 F.2d 828 |
| Parties | Ottis Mayo JONES, Appellant, v. Wilson WARLICK, Gordon S. Carr, and Arthur Goodman, Jr., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Ottis Mayo Jones on brief for appellant pro se.
William Medford, U. S. Atty., and Joseph R. Cruciani, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.
Jones appeals the disposition by summary judgment of his civil suit for damages against United States District Judge Wilson Warlick, FBI Agent Gordon S. Carr and Arthur Goodman, Jr., defense attorney at Jones' trial for violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired at Jones' trial to deprive him of his right to a fair trial.
Judge Bell of this Court, sitting by designation in the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, ruled that the federal officials and attorney Goodman were immune from civil suit for the acts alleged. See Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 80 U.S. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646; Yaselli v. Goff, 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 396, 56 A.L.R. 1239, aff'd per curiam, 275 U.S. 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395.
Without accepting any of Jones' characterizations of the alleged acts, we affirm the decision below for the reasons more fully stated in Judge Bell's thorough opinion.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brzozowski v. Randall
...Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). However, there is some authority to the contrary; see Jones v. Warlick, 364 F.2d 828 (4th Cir. 1966). For a recent discussion of the scope of immunity from civil suits under sections 1983 and 1985, see 40 Temple L.Q. 244 Ho......
-
Ferri v. Rossetti
...(1976) (discussing the common law immunity of a prosecutor). See also Sullens v. Carroll, 446 F.2d 1392 (5th Cir. 1971); Jones v. Warlick, 364 F.2d 828 (4th Cir. 1966) (absolute immunity of federally appointed criminal defense attorneys). It is significant that although the prosecutor is fo......
-
Vance v. Robinson, Civ. A. No. 2349.
...Inc., 279 F.Supp. 283, 284 (W.D. Pa., 1968); Peake v. County of Phila., Penn., 280 F.Supp. 853 (E.D.Pa., 1968). See: Jones v. Warlick, 364 F.2d 828 (4th Cir., 1966). 42 U.S.C. § 1985 makes conspiracy to deprive persons of civil rights actionable. However, the plaintiff although using the wo......
-
Jones v. FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. OF CONNECTICUT
...for acts performed by them in the course of their official duties. Jones v. Warlick, Civil No. 2006 (W.D.N.C.1965), aff'd, 364 F.2d 828 (4th Cir. 1966) (per curiam). See also Garfield v. Palmieri, 193 F.Supp. 137 (S.D.N.Y.1961), aff'd, 297 F.2d 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 871, 82 ......