Sykes v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 16738.,16738. |
| Citation | 290 F.2d 555 |
| Parties | Blanche SYKES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, and City and County of San Francisco, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Field, DeGoff & Rieman and Lewis & Stein, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Laurence E. Dayton, U. S. Atty., Frederick J. Woelflen, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee United States.
Dion R. Holm, City Atty. of San Francisco and George E. Baglin, Deputy City Atty. of San Francisco, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee City & County of San Francisco.
Before STEPHENS, CHAMBERS and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
The order of dismissal as to the City and County of San Francisco is affirmed, not for failure to prosecute, but for the reason that on the face of the plaintiff's complaint we can find no diversity or other jurisdiction when she alleges she is a resident (state citizenship not recited) of the County of San Mateo, California. Pacific Freight Lines v. United States, 9 Cir., 239 F.2d 191; Wasserman v. Perugini, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 305; Bullock v. United States, D.C.N.J., 72 F.Supp. 445.
Also, it should be noted that some of the problems of Roth v. Davis, 9 Cir., 231 F.2d 681, and Molnar v. National Broadcasting Co., 9 Cir., 231 F.2d 684, lurk here. Plaintiff named First Doe, Second Doe, Third Doe, Fourth Doe, Fifth Doe and Sixth Doe as defendants, saying First, Second and Third were employees of the United States and Fourth, Fifth and Sixth were employees of the City and County of San Francisco. The Does are not listed as parties on the appeal and where they went, we do not know. Anyway, throwing in a bunch of Does in federal pleading without knowing why is a hazard.
After notice and argument, the case was dismissed in the trial court under the district court's Rule 14 reading as follows:
Promptly after dismissal, the plaintiff-appellant moved to vacate the order of dismissal. Hearing was had on the motion and relief was denied.
Due to practical considerations in the district court clerk's office the dismissal calendar is prepared, we understand, only twice a year. Thus, some laggard plaintiffs can dally for eleven months and others for ten, nine, eight and seven months. And there is the class...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobs v. United States
...217 F.2d 203 (9th Cir. 1954); see Williams v. United States, 405 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1969) (no pendent jurisdiction); Sykes v. United States, 290 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1961); Pacific Freight Lines v. United States, 239 F.2d 191 (9th Cir. 1956); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2676, 2679(b). Here, Apache is attemp......
-
North v. Department of Mental Health
...Dyotherm Corp. v. Turbo Machine Co, n. 19 supra; Flaksa v. Little River Marine Construction Co, Inc, n. 19 supra; Sykes v. United States, 290 F.2d 555, 557 (CA 9, 1961) (vacating a dismissal under a local no-progress rule, the court said, "[d]ismissal is what counsel deserves[;] [t]he clien......
-
Sayre v. United States
...court. See Benbow v. Wolf, 217 F. 2d 203 (9th Cir. 1954); Bullock v. United States, 72 F.Supp. 445 (D.N.J.1947); Sykes v. United States, 290 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1961); and 3 Moore, Federal Practice, § 20.07 (2d ed. Nor does the plaintiff's status as a trustee in bankruptcy supply the missing......
-
Green v. Wayne Soap Co., Docket No. 8295
...see Durgin v. Graham (CA 5, 1967), 372 F.2d 130, 131.15 Flaksa v. Little River Marine Construction Co., Inc., Supra; Sykes v. United States (CA 9, 1961), 290 F.2d 555 (vacating (a dismissal under a local noprogress rule, the court noted at 557, 'Dismissal is what counsel deserves. The clien......