Williams v. Mercer, 85-1772-CIV-DAVIS.
Decision Date | 31 May 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 85-1772-CIV-DAVIS.,85-1772-CIV-DAVIS. |
Citation | 610 F. Supp. 169 |
Parties | Betty Ann WILLIAMS and Alan Ehrlich, as members of the official staff of the Honorable Alcee L. Hastings, and the Honorable Alcee L. Hastings, United States District Judge, Plaintiffs, v. Spencer D. MERCER, as Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; and the Honorable John C. Godbold, Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, the Honorable Gerald B. Tjoflat and Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Honorable Sam C. Pointer, Jr. and William C. O'Kelley, Judges serving on United States district courts within the Eleventh Circuit, as members of a committee known as the Investigating Committee of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Terence J. Anderson, Coral Gables, Fla., for plaintiffs.
G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Baltimore, Md., John Doar, New York City, for defendants Investigating Committee.
This case arises from investigative proceedings conducted pursuant to the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the Act), 28 U.S.C.A. § 372(c) (West Supp.1985). Because the parties needed an expedited resolution of the issues framed by Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motions for Emergency Relief, the Court conducted an emergency hearing on May 24, 1985 and issued an interim Memorandum Opinion on that date. This order supplements the Memorandum Opinion filed May 24, 1985 and constitutes the final order of this Court.
A special investigating committee was appointed by the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to the Act in March of 1983 to investigate allegations of "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts" concerning United States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings. § 372(c)(1), (4). Pursuant to its investigation, the committee requested the issuance of subpoenas seeking the appearance of present and former staff members of Judge Hastings and the production of certain documents and records. § 372(c)(9)(A). These subpoenas were issued by the Clerk of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 332(d)(1) (West Supp.1985). Plaintiffs objected to the validity and enforcement of these subpoenas in a complaint filed May 20, 1985.
Specifically, Plaintiffs attacked the subpoenas on the following grounds:
1. The subpoenas impinged upon privileged communications between Judge Hastings and members of his staff, and any documents or records in Judge Hastings' possession were immune from disclosure;
2. The section establishing the committee's subpoena powers, § 372(c)(9)(A), and the issuance and service provision of the Act, § 332(d)(1), are unconstitutional; and
3. The service of the subpoenas by agents of the FBI improperly impinged upon the confidentiality of the investigation.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief preventing the enforcement of the subpoenas, and a declaration that the subpoenas are invalid, the service of them improper, and the subpoena powers under the Act unconstitutional. Further, Plaintiffs seek the return of certain documents delivered pursuant to one of the subpoenas in question and protective injunctive relief regarding the use and disclosure of the documents.
On the morning of the hearing, Defendant Committee raised for the first time the issue of this Court's jurisdiction and moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Because the subpoenas compelled the attendance of many interested persons on Monday, May 27, 1985, this Court felt it appropriate to address the jurisdictional issue as well as the merits of the Complaint. This approach was taken in an effort to avoid unnecessary delay in the event an appellate court should later rule that this court should have addressed the substantive issues raised by Plaintiffs.
The Act clearly confers authority to issue subpoenas only upon the clerk of the court of appeals in which a complaint pursuant to the Act is filed. Section 372(c)(9)(A) provides the committee with full subpoena powers "as provided in Section 332(d) of this title." Section 332(d)(1) provides: No other court is granted the authority to issue subpoenas, specifically or implicitly. The court of appeals being the issuing body, it is therefore the appropriate body to which challenges to its subpoenas should first be made. A district court is without jurisdiction to entertain challenges to subpoenas issued pursuant to the Act without a specific reference from the court of appeals.
Defendant Committee's Motion to Dismiss is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Committee of Judicial Council of Eleventh Circuit, Matter of
... ... OF the ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ... Betty Ann WILLIAMS and Alan Ehrlich, as members of the ... official staff of the Honorable Alcee L. Hastings, ... Hastings, ... United States District Judge, ... Plaintiffs-Appellants, ... Spencer MERCER, as Clerk of the United States Court of ... Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; and the Honorable ... ...
-
Hastings v. Judicial Conference of U.S.
... ... directed that subpoenas be issued and served on Judge Hastings' secretary, Betty Ann Williams, and on three of the judge's then-present or former law clerks. The subpoenas directed each to ... Judicial Conference, 657 F.Supp. 672, 674 (D.D.C.1986), citing (1) Williams v. Mercer, 610 F.Supp. 169 (S.D.Fla.1985), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, In the Matter of ... ...
-
Hastings v. Judicial Conference of US, Civ. A. No. 86-2353.
... ... Circuit, 783 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir.1986), aff'g in part and rev'g in part on other grounds Williams v. Mercer, 610 F. Supp. 169 (S.D.Fla.1985), cert. denied sub nom. Hastings v. Godbold, ___ U.S ... ...
-
Ivy v. Dole, Civ. A. No. 85-177-A.
... ... MEMORANDUM OPINION ... RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, District Judge ... This matter comes before the Court on defendant's motion for ... ...