TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hewitt v. City of Jacksonville

Hewitt v. City of Jacksonville, 188 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1951)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 20, 1951
Docket
No. 13398_1
Judges
Bor-Ah, Holmes, McCORD
Citations
188 F.2d 4231951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3044

Opinion — Holmes

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from the dismissal of an original complaint alleging a violation of appellant’s civil rights, and from the refusal of the lower court to allow the filing of an amended complaint on the ground that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The amended complaint founded jurisdiction on 8 U.S.C.A. § 43 , which affords redress to the injured party for violations of his civil rights. In substance, the amended complaint alleged that the City of Jacksonville, acting through the Superintendent of its Prison Farms, and under col- or of law, regulations, .ordinances, and customs of the City, and while the plaintiff was a prisoner confined at its Prison Farms, “did unlawfully and wilfully shoot off and discharge a pistol against, into, and upon the plaintiff,” and that such act constituted a deprivation of the plaintiff’s civil rights, for which an action is authorized Under 8 U.S.C.A. § 43 . The Superintendent of the Prison Farms is not made a party to this suit.' The appellant stakes his entire case on his claim against the City of Jacksonville.

The lower court, in refusing to allow the amended complaint to be filed, held that the word “persons” used in the Civil Rights statute, 8 U.S.C.A. § 43 , does not include a State or its governmental subdivisions acting in their sovereign, as distinguished from their proprietary, capacity. It further held that the appellant’s assertion that he was shot by the Superintendent of the Prison Farms did not constitute a sufficient allegation of fact to charge a deprivation of civil rights within the meaning of the statute.

We are in accord with the views expressed by the lower court; and, on the authority of Charlton v. City of Hialeah, 188 F.2d 421 , this day decided by this court, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 29 cases

View all citing references →
1952: 11953: 11954: 11957: 31958: 31959: 21960: 11961: 11962: 11966: 21967: 11968: 11969: 21970: 41972: 21973: 11974: 11986: 119522026peak 1970 · 4

Most recent

  1. Harper v. City of Birmingham661 F. Supp. 672 (N.D. Ala. 1986)
  2. Keystone Collection Service, Inc. v. Puerto Rico388 F. Supp. 304 (D.P.R. 1974)
  3. Glass v. Hamilton County, Tennessee363 F. Supp. 241 (E.D. Tenn. 1973)
  4. League of Academic Women v. Regents of the University of California343 F. Supp. 636 (N.D. Cal. 1972)
  5. Francis v. Davidson340 F. Supp. 351 (D. Maryland 1972)
  6. Henke v. Yellow Cab Co.319 F. Supp. 356 (N.D. Cal. 1970)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Charlton v. City of Hialeah, 188 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1951) 33

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list