Urbano v. Calissi
| Decision Date | 23 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 15508.,15508. |
| Citation | 353 F.2d 196 |
| Parties | Robert F. URBANO, Appellant, v. Guy W. CALISSI, Prosecutor of Bergen County, New Jersey, Martin J. Ferber, Sheriff of Bergen County (Jail), New Jersey, Carl W. Jockish, Chief of Police, Paramus, New Jersey, John F. Nicolas, Captain of Police, Paramus, New Jersey, and Their Agents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Robert F. Urbano, pro se.
Roger W. Breslin, Carl W. Jockish, John P. Nicolas, and Ronald J. Picinich, Hackensack, N. J., for Guy W. Calissi.
Before STALEY and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and COHEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff appeals to us from a judgment of dismissal of his complaint in an action which he has brought against the Prosecutor and Sheriff of Bergen County, New Jersey, the Chief of Police and Captain of Police of Paramus, New Jersey, "and their agents".
The complaint, which was filed by the plaintiff pro se, alleges that plaintiff is now incarcerated in the New Jersey State Prison at Trenton, New Jersey. It alleges that the defendants, acting under color of the laws of the State of New Jersey and the ordinances of the municipalities of Bergen County, New Jersey, took into their possession certain personal property, chiefly clothing, which belonged to plaintiff and that defendants have not returned it to him and have maliciously refused to account to him for it, although he has made demand for its return. He claims $688.40, representing the value of the personal property, with interest, and punitive damages in the amount of $5,000. Jurisdiction is claimed under the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.S. C.A. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
On June 9, 1965 the District Judge granted leave to plaintiff to file the complaint without payment of fees. In the same order the court went on to state that it had examined the complaint thus filed, that it failed to disclose any basis for jurisdiction and therefore ordered the complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The present appeal is taken from the judgment of dismissal.
It appears that none of the defendants has been served with the complaint. There is therefore no party defendant of record in the proceeding. As a result, when the case was submitted to us on appeal there were no appellees before the court. In a case of this kind it is desirable that the action by permitted to proceed in the customary manner. Plaintiff was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaito v. Strauss, Civ. A. No. 65-1018.
...altogether clear that the dismissal of the suit at Misc. No. 3323 can be accorded conclusive effect in this action. See: Urbano v. Calissi, 353 F.2d 196 (3d Cir. 1965); Armstrong v. Rushing, 352 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1965); Williams v. Murdoch, 330 F.2d 745 (3d Cir. 1964); Harmon v. Superior C......
-
Bauers v. Heisel
...and at the same time ordered the clerk to file the complaint together with the order of dismissal. As we pointed out in Urbano v. Calissi, 353 F.2d 196 (3d Cir. 1965), where a similar order was entered and where, as here, no service was made on the defendants, plaintiff is entitled to an op......
-
Loux v. Rhay
...a brief here, appellant may have been foreclosed from obtaining review of the district court\'s determination. Compare Urbano v. Calissi, 353 F.2d 196 (C.A.3, 1965)." 361 F.2d at 584, note The undesirability, from the standpoint of proper judicial administration, of proceeding without issua......
-
Skolnick v. Parsons
...that the district court was without jurisdiction. Idem.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2105. Harmon was cited with approval in Urbano v. Calissi, 353 F.2d 196 (3d Cir. 1965), on which plaintiff also relies. We agree with Harmon and Urbano that the District Court should exercise sua sponte dismissal ......