Putch v. United States
Decision Date | 18 December 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 16244,No. 16266.,No. 16265,16265,16244,16266. |
Citation | 353 F. Supp. 66 |
Parties | Nick PUTCH et al. v. UNITED STATES of America. James W. HUFFMAN v. UNITED STATES of America. Eddie DOMINGUE, Jr., d/b/a United Service Company v. John N. MITCHELL, Attorney General of the United States. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
H. F. Sockrider, Jr., Shreveport, La., for Nick A. Putch, Myrtle H. Singley and Henry A. Breedlove.
John M. Brown, Shreveport, La., for Mrs. A. T. McGuire and William A. Cantanese.
Charles E. Welsh, Bossier City, La., for Aaron Beam.
Donald E. Walter, U. S. Atty., for the United States.
No. 16265, W. D. La., Shreveport Division. No. 16244, W. D. La., Lake Charles Division. No. 16266, W. D. La., Lafayette Division.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These matters were consolidated for purposes of trial. All plaintiffs sought an injunction against the seizure of certain pinball machines seized by the United States under the provisions of the Gambling Devices Act of 1962, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1171-1178, which provides that it shall be unlawful for any person during any calendar year to engage in the business of repairing, reconditioning, buying, selling, leasing, using or making available for use by others any gambling device under specified conditions unless such person has registered with the Attorney General and made certain information available to the Attorney General. Petitioners sought additional relief which it was not necessary to consider. Defendant filed an answer and a Motion to Dismiss predicated in part on the argument that petitioners were not properly before the Court because they had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided in the Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1177; 19 U.S.C. §§ 1607, 1608, and 1610.
15 U.S.C. § 1177 provides as follows:
The procedures by which petitioners may claim the seized property are set out in detail in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1607, 1608 and 1610. There is no allegation or pretense that petitioners have attempted to utilize or have utilized these procedures.
It is well established that petitioners are not entitled to the relief which they seek until they have exhausted their administrative remedies. Morgan v. United States, 107 F.Supp. 501 (W.D. Ky.1952); Rice v. Walls, 213 F.2d 693 (6 Cir. 1954), and Hewitt v. National Surety Corp., 130 F.Supp. 110 (N.D.Ga. 1955). The Morgan case, supra, provides as follows:
Petitioners in the Rice case, supra, sought restitution to them as owners of slot machines alleged to have been wrongfully seized by agents of the United States under "pretended authority" of the Johnson Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1171-1177, which is the same Act (as amended in 1962) as is presently before the Court. As in the instant case the petitioners failed to file claims as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bunge Corporation v. Republic of US of Brazil, Civ. A. No. 68-437.
...353 F. Supp. 641973 AMC 1219 ... BUNGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, ... REPUBLIC OF the UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL, trading under the name and style of Loide Brasileiro and the SS OMNIUM CARRIER, ... ...