Wheeldin v. Wheeler

Citation302 F.2d 36
Decision Date30 January 1962
Docket NumberNo. 17247.,17247.
PartiesDonald WHEELDIN and Admiral Dawson, Appellants, v. William WHEELER, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, Cal., and Marvin Leon, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.

Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Donald A. Fareed, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Clarke A. Knicely, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Wright, Wright, Goldwater & Mack by Loyd Wright and Andrew J. Davis, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel.

Before BARNES, JERTBERG and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

MERRILL, Circuit Judge.

Appellants were on August 7, 1958, subpoenaed to appear before the Unamerican Activities Committee of the United States House of Representatives, which was then proposing to conduct a hearing in Los Angeles. They resisted their duty to comply with the subpoenas, and Appellant Wheeldin's conviction of contempt for failure to respond was upheld by this court in Wheeldin v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 283 F.2d 535, following Barenblatt v. United States, 1959, 360 U.S. 109, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115.

Appellants have now brought this action for money damages against appellee, a committee investigator who had been instrumental in issuing and serving the subpoenas, and have appealed to this court from judgment of the district court dismissing the action for failure of the complaint to state a claim.1 The gravamen of their complaint is that the subpoenas were invalidly, maliciously and mischievously issued and served for the sole purpose of exposing them to public scorn with consequent loss of employment and of esteem. They assert that they have a federal right to protection against such abuse of federal process; that since the subpoenas were not properly issued appellee in securing their issuance and service has subjected himself to personal liability.

The invalidity of the subpoenas, as claimed by appellants, is based upon the fact that they were by the chairman of the committee signed in blank. The names of the appellants as the witnesses subpoenaed were later filled in by the appellee. Appellants assert that no valid subpoenas were issued since the only issuance was of something in blank; that to sanction this practice of signing in blank is in effect to permit a delegation of authority to issue subpoenas; that no power to delegate this authority has been granted.

The practical dilemma faced by those authorized to issue subpoenas has been pointed out by Justice Jackson, concurring in Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking and Lumber Company, 1947, 331 U.S. 111, 123, 67 S.Ct. 1129, 11 L.Ed. 1375. As he explained, the workload is often such that the authorized individual "might sign large batches of blank subpoenas and turn them over to subordinates to be filled in over his signature. Or he might sign batches of subpoenas already made out by subordinates, probably without reading them and certainly without examining the causes for their issuance or the scope of the information required."2

The congressional committee in the case before us investigates through its investigators and one may assume that it would accept their conclusions as to the relevance of any witness' testimony. If, of the alternatives mentioned by Justice Jackson, the former practice is to be deemed an unauthorized delegation of authority while the latter is not, the distinction would appear to be somewhat formal. To the extent that it has force, it should, in our view, have been raised in Wheeldin v. United States, supra, where the appellants resisted their duty to comply. To hold that the personal liability of this appellee must turn on such a distinction would, in our judgment, run counter to the principle of immunity recognized in Barr v. Matteo, 1959, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed. 2d 1434. It would permit the rule of that case to be frustrated by a turn of formalities having little, if any, relation to the injurious conduct complained of.

Here the source of the claimed injury is that appellee, through the exercise of his official investigative power and based upon his appraisal of the evidence which would result from the appearance of these appellants, has seen fit to present them...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Norton v. McShane
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 15, 1964
    ...to bring the doctrine into play." The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had applied the doctrine of immunity. Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 302 F.2d 36 (9th Cir. 1962). It also should be observed that under Wheeldin state law governs the cause of action. Removal is permitted only because "* * *......
  • Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 493
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1963
    ...reversed. 9 Cir., 280 F.2d 293. On remand the District Court dismissed the action without opinion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 9 Cir., 302 F.2d 36. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 371 U.S. 812, 83 S.Ct. 58, 9 L.Ed.2d 54. The basic question presen......
  • Clayton v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 4, 1962
  • Inman v. Hirst
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • December 31, 1962
    ...Cir., 299 F.2d 358, and Brownfield v. Landon, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 307 F.2d 389. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 302 F.2d 36, affirmed the dismissal of a suit against a committee investigator for the Unamerican Activities Committee of the United States Ho......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT