Ruark v. Schooley

• Decision Date: 28 December 1962
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 7761.
• Citation: 211 F. Supp. 921
• Parties: Theodore Charles RUARK and Charles Willard Ferguson, Plaintiffs, v. John M. SCHOOLEY, D. R. Stills and L. C. Owens, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

211 F. Supp. 921

Theodore Charles RUARK and Charles Willard Ferguson, Plaintiffs, v. John M. SCHOOLEY, D. R. Stills and L. C. Owens, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 7761.

United States District Court D. Colorado.

December 28, 1962.

T. C. Ruark and C. W. Ferguson, pro se.

Robert S. Wham, City Atty., and James H. Snyder, Asst. City Atty., Denver, Colo., for defendants.

CHILSON, District Judge.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and briefs have been filed in support of and in opposition to said motion. The Court has considered the motion and the briefs and is now duly advised.

The complaint seeks damages for an alleged violation of Sections 1983 and 1985(3) of Title 42 United States Code (federal Civil Rights Act).

Section 1983 provides:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

Section 1985(3), insofar as it applies to this case, gives a right of action for damages to persons injured by an act done in the furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws.

The motion to dismiss is based on two grounds: first, that this Court lacks jurisdiction; and, second that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

This Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Title 28 United States Code § 1343, which in its essential parts provides:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

"(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; * * *

"(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;

"(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote."

The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction should be and hereby is denied.

Does the complaint state a claim upon which relief can be granted by this Court?

The complaint alleges the plaintiffs were confined in the Denver county jail awaiting trial on a felony charge in the State District Court in Denver, Colorado; while so confined, the defendants, acting under color of state law, caused plaintiffs to be confined in an isolation cell and deprived of food, water and toilet paper for a period of 52 hours.

For the purposes of disposing of the motion to dismiss, the commission of the acts alleged and their commission by defendants under color of state law is admitted.

Plaintiffs contend that these acts:

(1) Were in violation of Colorado Revised Statutes 105-7-4, which provides:

"The sheriff of each county shall feed all the prisoners kept in confinement by him, with good and sufficient food."

(2) Were in violation of Article II, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, which prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments."

(3) Deprived the plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws contrary to their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

(4) Denied the plaintiffs due process of law contrary to their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

It is only deprivation of rights derived under the federal Constitution and laws which give rise to an action under Sections 1983 and 1985(3).

The fact that defendants, while acting under color of state law, may have violated a state law or the state Constitution is not a basis for an action under the federal Civil Rights Act, unless the violations result in a deprivation of some right which the plaintiffs have under the federal Constitution and laws.

"Violation of local law does not necessarily mean that federal rights have been invaded. The fact that a prisoner is assaulted, injured, or even murdered by state officials does not necessarily mean that he is deprived of any right protected or secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 at 108, 65 S.Ct. 1031, at 1038, 89 L.Ed. 1495.

Although the complaint does not so state, plaintiffs contend in their brief that the defendants' violation of the foregoing statute by failing to provide them with food, while at the same time complying with the statute by feeding...