Radford v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 17289.,17289. |
| Citation | 264 F.2d 709 |
| Parties | Nancy A. RADFORD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Damon G. Yerkes, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.
E. Coleman Madsen, Asst. U. S. Atty., James L. Guilmartin, U. S. Atty., Southern Dist. of Florida, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE and JONES, Circuit Judges.
Brought against the United States and several named individuals alleged to be officers or enlisted personnel of the United States Army with the jurisdiction based on the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., the suit sought damages against all defendants for what was alleged to be a conspiracy between the named individuals resulting in plaintiff's discharge from her position with the United States.
The defendants moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Thereafter plaintiff tendered for filing an amended complaint in all respects the same as the original except that the amended complaint went into more detail in regard to the conspiracy and the acts of the named conspirators under it.
The district judge, holding as to the individual defendants that jurisdiction was lacking because there was neither diversity nor federal question jurisdiction, dismissed the suit as to them without prejudice.
As to the United States, holding that no cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act was stated against it, he dismissed the suit with prejudice.
Plaintiff-appellant is here urging that the judgment was entered in error and should be reversed, while the appellees insist that there is no basis whatever for the maintenance of the suit, and the judgment of dismissal was properly entered.
We think there can be no doubt that this is so. It is so as to the individual defendants because no ground whatever for jurisdiction is stated in the complaint except the Tort Claims Act and that act makes no provision for suits against individuals not otherwise suable in the federal courts.1 It is so as to the United States because no fact is alleged as to it upon which liability could be predicated under the invoked act. Not a single case2 cited by appellant in support of her claim that a case against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act was alleged is in any respect in point here. We think none can be found.
As pointed out in the Loeb case, note 2, supra, "the gist of a civil action for conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself but the civil wrong which is alleged to have been done pursuant to the conspiracy." We have found no case holding, we believe there is none, that the Tort Claims Act subjects the United States to a claim of the kind asserted here, that, as a result of a conspiracy to cause plaintiff's discharge, plaintiff was discharged by the officer or agent of the United States charged with the duty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wathen v. United States, 249-69.
...U.S. 52, 47 S.Ct. 21, 71 L.Ed. 160 (1920); Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290, 20 S.Ct. 574, 44 L.Ed. 774 (1900); Radford v. United States, 264 F.2d 709, 710 (5th Cir. 1959); Morelli v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 848, 858 (1966). The appropriate penalty to impose upon an employee for infrac......
-
Bowling v. U.S.
...Government to be engaged in a conspiracy for which an action may be brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act."); Radford v. United States, 264 F.2d 709, 710 (5th Cir.1959) ("the United States is by its nature incapable of entering into the conspiracy charged"). 43 497 F.Supp.2d 143 (D.Mass......
-
Chafin v. Pratt
...Unable under the Federal Tort Claims Act to obtain such redress from the Government, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a), (h), Radford v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 709, she here seeks to hold Defendants personally liable as Georgia tortfeasors and as § 1985 conspirators. In De Busk v. Harvin,......
-
Crete v. City of Lowell, 04-1891.
...v. United States, 60 F.3d 492, 496 (8th Cir.1995); Richman v. Straley, 48 F.3d 1139, 1146-47 (10th Cir.1995); Radford v. United States, 264 F.2d 709, 710-11 (5th Cir.1959). Beyond the conclusion in those federal cases, the reasoning is apt. The federal courts have considered that to determi......