McEachern v. United States, 8956.
| Decision Date | 25 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 8956.,8956. |
| Citation | 321 F.2d 31 |
| Parties | Clement L. McEACHERN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Clement L. McEachern, Greenville, S. C., pro se (Charles C. Moore, Spartanburg, S. C., on brief).
John C. Eldridge, Atty., Dept. of Justice (John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., John C. Williams, U. S. Atty., and Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Dept. of Justice, on brief), for appellee.
Before BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and WINTER, District Judge.
Removed from office as a Hearing Examiner for the Social Security Administration by order of the Civil Service Commission, appellant Clement L. McEachern sought review and vacation of the order in the District Court. His suit was dismissed there on the ground that the court had "no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Civil Service Commission." The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., we hold, governs the appointment and removal of such examiners and empowers the District Court to set aside the order for cause. We simply find jurisdiction; we intimate nothing as to the validity of the order.
Appointment of examiners is provided in § 11 of the Act 5 U.S.C. § 1010, as follows:
McEachern was duly appointed under this provision as hearing examiner on July 25, 1958. The Social Security Administration on October 20, 1961 requested the Commission to ascertain if there was good cause for his discharge. Social Security complained of his failure to meet his financial obligations, specifying eight instances. A full hearing before a presiding officer of the Civil Service Commission followed, both McEachern and Social Security appearing with counsel. McEachern's derelictions constituted, according to the "Statement of Charges and Specifications", a violation of the policy of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in that they brought discredit on the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Social Security Administration and HEW.
Upon the evidence the presiding officer sustained four, and dismissed four, of the charges. McEachern's discharge was recommended. The Commission, after hearing and study of the record, found "good cause" established for the dismissal, and so ordered. The defendant named in the complaint here is the United States of America. The prayer to the court was to "review and reverse" the determination of the Civil Service Commission and to "reinstate" McEachern; the predicate of the complaint was that the Commission was without substantial evidence warranting its decision.
In dismissing, the District Judge believed that the removal of an administrative officer was exclusively the province of the Executive Department — that the court could only look to see if the plaintiff had been relieved of his position in violation of statute or without the benefit of safeguarding procedures. Certainly this is true generally. E. g., Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290, 20 S.Ct. 574, 44 L.Ed. 774 (1900); Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29, cert. denied, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1957); Carter v. Forrestal, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 175 F.2d 364 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 832, 70 S.Ct. 47, 94 L.Ed. 507 (1949). Indeed, it is recognized in the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Associated Dry Goods Corp. v. EQUAL EMP. OPP. COM'N
...more, can provide a basis for jurisdiction. See also Littell v. Morton, 445 F.2d 1207, 1210 (4th Cir. 1971); McEachern v. United States, 321 F.2d 31, 33 (4th Cir. 1963). The Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue but recent decisions lend significant support to the theory that ad......
-
White v. Bloomberg
...that the Administrative Procedure Act confers jurisdiction to review a federal agency's discharge of an employee. McEachern v. United States, 321 F.2d 31 (4th Cir. 1963). See Halsey v. Nitze, 390 F.2d 142 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 939 (1968); Mindel v. United States Civil Service C......
-
Gilbert v. Johnson, Civ. A. No. 16424.
...See McTiernan v. Gronouski, 337 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir. 1964); Baum v. Zuckert, 342 F.2d 145, 147 (6th Cir. 1965); McEachern v. United States, 321 F.2d 31, 33 (4th Cir. 1953). The general refusal of the courts to review the merits of personnel decisions finds additional support in the difficul......
-
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Schlesinger
...Procedure Act is a grant of jurisdiction. Littell v. Morton (4th Cir. 1971), 445 F.2d 1207, 1212-13; McEachern v. United States (4th Cir. 1963), 321 F.2d 31, 33, and Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Johnston (4th Cir. 1961), 295 F.2d 856, 865, it seems support the view that in this Circuit the APA......