Wager v. Pro, C. A. No. 1717-73.

• Decision Date: 25 March 1975
• Docket Number: C. A. No. 1717-73.
• Citation: 391 F. Supp. 752
• Parties: John Arthur WAGER, Plaintiff, v. Maynard J. PRO, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

391 F. Supp. 752

John Arthur WAGER, Plaintiff, v. Maynard J. PRO, Defendant.

C. A. No. 1717-73.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

March 25, 1975.

Ed Wilhite, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Earl J. Silbert, U.S. Atty., District of Columbia, Arnold T. Aikens, Eric B. Marcy, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C. for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

SIRICA, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of the defendant, Maynard J. Pro, for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The plaintiff has filed legal memoranda in opposition to the above motion and the government, in responding thereto, requested an oral hearing on the motion. On February 13, 1975, the Court heard argument on the motion and took the matter under advisement.

This action commenced when the plaintiff, John Arthur Wager, filed a "Complaint For Gross Negligence" in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the case was removed to this Court. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was a probationary laboratory technician trainee in the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service of the U.S. Treasury Department, and was under the immediate supervision of the defendant, the Chief of the National Office Forensic Laboratory within the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Division of the I.R.S. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant, as plaintiff's direct supervisor, directed him (plaintiff) to undertake a project designed to entrap certain "suspected organized crime figures" in an attempt to bribe the plaintiff. The plaintiff avers that the defendant gave him detailed instructions concerning what he should do and assured him, in response to plaintiff's objections, of protection from legal prosecution.

It is further alleged that pursuant to his instruction, the plaintiff consulted with certain persons and eventually mailed to them a letter containing evidence in the possession of the United States and requesting a loan in the amount of $15,000. As a result of his actions, the plaintiff was arrested and later indicted on two counts of soliciting a bribe. The plaintiff avers that the defendant continued to assure him of immunity even after his arrest. The case went to trial in October of 1972 and resulted in the acquittal of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff complains that at no time during this period did the defendant come forward to explain the "exculpatory" circumstances. In fact, Mr. Wager contends that when the defendant testified as a witness (for the government) during the trial he falsely denied knowing about the entrapment attempt. Thus, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was grossly negligent in directing the plaintiff to participate in the entrapment project in the first place, in advising him that he would suffer no legal prosecution, and in not coming forward with evidence exculpatory of the plaintiff. He seeks $400,000 in actual and exemplary damages.

On December 11, 1974, the defendant filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. While vigorously denying that he ever participated in an illegal project, the defendant argues that even if he had done everything charged by the plaintiff that the complaint would still fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that public policy precludes the maintenance of this action.

It is a basic principle of...