Ligare v. Harries, 7893.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 7893.,7893. |
| Citation | 128 F.2d 582 |
| Parties | LIGARE v. HARRIES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
George Ligare, pro se, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
J. Albert Woll, U. S. Atty., and W. S. White, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and KERNER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff asserts that his discharge by the Works Progress Administration was unlawful. For damages arising out of such unlawful discharge, he brought suit in the Illinois state court, which suit was removed to the Federal court where it was later dismissed on defendant's motion. It is plaintiff's appeal from said order of dismissal which is here before us.
Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed as a pauper. We directed the clerk of the District Court to send up the complete record of the proceedings in the District Court so that we might be better informed as to the nature of the case when considering a motion by the Government to dismiss the appeal for failure to file cost bond, statement of points, and brief. The Government's motion to dismiss was denied, largely on the ground that plaintiff was permitted to prosecute his appeal as a pauper and he was without the help of attorney. As a pauper, he was not obliged to file a cost bond. His elaborate notice of appeal, we believed, was the equivalent of a statement of points, and his failure to meet the requirements of the rule in this respect was not fatal.
Our chief concern has been over the wisdom or the necessity of our appointing counsel to represent him, so that this case might be more clearly and satisfactorily presented.
Our examination of the record and our search of the authorities, however, convince us that such action would be futile. The law is clearly settled. A government employee, not holding his position by virtue of a definite tenure, is subject to discharge at any time. He has no cause of action for such discharge, as his discharge, under such circumstances, can not be wrongful.
Briefly stated, plaintiff asserts that he was, on November 5, 1935, employed as a draftsman on a W. P. A. project, at a salary of $85 per month. He was transferred to another project at the same salary. There he was termed an electrical draftsman. He asserts that he was then promoted to the position of junior electrical engineer, and on completion of that project was transferred to another, as junior clerk. In October, 1937, he received a recommendation that he be classified as senior clerk, at $85.14 per month.
He then received a position as senior clerk. He was complimented on his work. In March, 1938, he was notified that his employment would be terminated because his work was not up to the standard required by the project. He disputes the alleged lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhodes v. Houston
...1080, 96 L.Ed. 1367); Temple v. Pergament (D.C.N.J.) 235 F.Supp. 242; Jefferson v. Heinze (D.C.Cal.) 201 F. Supp. 606, 607; Ligare v. Harries (7 Cir.) 128 F.2d 582; Higgins v. Steele (8 Cir.) 195 F.2d 366, 368; Gershon v. United States (8 Cir.) 243 F.2d 527; Wilson v. Ellis (D.C.Tex.) 193 F......
-
Childs v. Duckworth
...success are extremely slim. Caruth v. Pinkney, 683 F.2d 1044, 1048 (7th Cir.1982); Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d at 887; Ligare v. Harries, 128 F.2d 582, 583 (7th Cir.1942). Once this threshold is passed, the other factors to be considered are whether: the litigant has the ability to investiga......
-
McKeever v. Israel, 80-2785
...Miller v. Pleasure, 296 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 964, 82 S.Ct. 1592, 8 L.Ed.2d 830 (1962); Ligare v. Harries, 128 F.2d 582, 583 (7th Cir. 1942)). In Maclin, this Court found that the plaintiff's confinement to a wheelchair and constant physical pain prevented him from......
-
Davison v. Joseph Horne & Company
...6 Cir., 235 F.2d 47; Taylor v. Steele, 8 Cir., 194 F.2d 864, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 973, 72 S.Ct. 1080, 96 L.Ed. 1367; Ligare v. Harries, 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 582. In this it is in contrast with the more mandatory provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), where leave to proceed in forma pauperis s......