Marten v. Holbrook
| Decision Date | 09 December 1907 |
| Docket Number | 13,855. |
| Citation | 157 F. 716 |
| Parties | MARTEN v. HOLBROOK et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Sooy & Dorn and C. W. Eastin, for plaintiff.
John W Stetson, Jesse W. Lilienthal, and William G. Burke, City and County Atty., for defendants.
The only ground of the demurrer interposed to the amended complaint which I deem it necessary or material to notice is that challenging the jurisdiction of this court. The pleading presents an evident attempt to state a cause of action under the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the statutes enacted in pursuance thereof for a deprivation of civil rights, such as to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court but, stripped of immaterial matter and a wealth of adjectives that add nothing of substance, the complaint states no more to my mind than a cause of action for false imprisonment, a wrong which it is the province of the state, and not the federal, courts to redress.
While it is alleged that the defendants entered into a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of certain enumerated rights to which he is entitled as a citizen of the United States and of this state, it very clearly appears that all the wrongs stated to have been inflicted upon the plaintiff through the alleged conspiracy grew out of and flowed from his arrest and confinement in the Mendocino State Hospital for the Insane which latter act appears, according to the averments of the complaint, to have been the culmination of the antecedent acts of the defendant. The alleged conspiracy, therefore does not constitute the gist or gravamen of the cause of action alleged; but it was the unlawful and unwarranted restraint of his person which worked the plaintiff injury. Taylor v. Bidwell, 65 Cal. 489, 4 P. 491; More v. Finger, 128 Cal. 313, 60 P. 933; Dowdell v. Carpy, 129 Cal. 168, 61 P. 948. In Taylor v. Bidwell, supra, Mr. Justice Ross, speaking for the court, says:
The other cases referred to are to like effect.
The provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States the protection of which it is sought here to invoke, do not relate to or include such merely private wrongs or transgressions as those complained of. The inhibitions of those enactments are against the state, its officers or agents, and not against the acts of merely private individuals acting as such. The invasion of the individual rights of one citizen by the unofficial and unsanctioned acts of another...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rury v. Gandy
...65; Twining v. New Jersey, 29 S. Ct. 14, 211 U. S. 78, 53 L. Ed. 97; Conner v. Elliot, 59 U. S. (18 How.) 591, 15 L. Ed. 497; Marten v. Holbrook (C. C.) 157 F. 716; California Oil Co. v. Miller (C. C.) 96 F. 16; Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547, 25 L. Ed. 357; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 2......
-
United States v. Pan-American Petroleum Co.
...but is only one element in the cause of action. Parris v. Atlanta, etc., Ry. Co., 128 Ga. 434, 57 S. E. 692." In Marten v. Holbrook et al. (C. C. Cal.) 157 F. 716, 717, we find the following recognition of the same principle, by Judge Van Fleet: "The alleged conspiracy, therefore, does not ......
-
Swift v. Fourth National Bank of Columbus, Georgia, Civ. A. No. 893.
...Amendment cannot be the basis of an action complaining of the acts of private individuals or business establishments. Marten v. Holbrook, 9 Cir., 157 F. 716. (4) Sections 1981, 1983 and 1985 of Title 42 U.S.C.A., are the Civil Rights Acts. Section 1981 can have no application here because n......
-
Bartlett v. Weimer, 12564.
...right not to have private individuals swear falsely in a state court is not a right secured by the federal Constitution. Marten v. Holbrook, C.C.N.D.Cal.1907, 157 F. 716; Whittington v. Johnston, D.C.M.D.Ala.1952, 102 F.Supp. 352, affirmed 5 Cir., 201 F.2d 810. In all this we are in accord ......