Nathaniel Denman v. James K. Leedy
Nathaniel DENMAN Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James K. LEEDY Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
For many years appellant Nathaniel Denman has been engaged in embittered strife with his estranged wife, Mrs. Frances Denman. Their conflicts have resulted in the institution of several lawsuits. This action was brought on behalf of Nathaniel Denman and his seven children under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), and the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 , in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Thirty-six defendants were named, including members of Mrs. Denman’s family, various public officials of the State of Ohio, County of Wayne and City of Wooster, and several additional private parties. The complaint alleged that the defendants had conspired to “deprive the plaintiffs of their mutual care, companionship, love and affection.” Additionally several specific acts of alleged wrongful conduct were listed. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.
There are several reasons requiring our affirmance of the District Court. First, it is readily apparent that the substance of this claim is an intrafamily custody battle. As such this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 , 10 S. Ct. 850 , 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890); Gargallo v. Gargallo, 472 F.2d 1219 (6th Cir. 1973); Harris v. Turner, 329 F.2d 918 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 907 , 85 S.Ct. 202 , 13 L.Ed.2d 180 (1964); Carqueville v. Woodruff, 153 F.2d 1011 (6th Cir. 1946).
Second, the complaint fails to allege a valid cause of action under § 1983. A careful examination of the complaint demonstrates that the only assertion involving federally protected rights is the allegation that the Clerk of the Municipal Court of Wooster, Ohio, improperly failed to fix bail for Nathaniel Denman following an arrest. Under Ohio law the Clerk of the court may fix bail in misdemeanor cases. § 2937.23, Ohio Rev. Code. As the plaintiffs’ charge relates to an act performed by the Clerk within the scope of his official quasi-judicial duties, this defendant is entitled to immunity. Davis v. McAteer, 431 F.2d 81 (8th Cir. 1970); Stewart v. Minnick, 409 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1969); Sullivan v. Kelleher, 405 F.2d 486 (1st Cir. 1968).
Third, the complaint fails to set forth a cognizable cause of action under § 1985(3). Here there is no allegation of a racial or otherwise class based invidiously discriminatory animus behind the actions of the alleged conspirators. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88,102 , 91 S.Ct. 1790 , 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971); Crabtree v. Brennan, 466 F.2d 480 (6th Cir. 1972).
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 7 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(finding that “[a]s the plaintiffs’ charge relates to an act performed by the Clerk within the scope of his quasi-judicial duties, this defendant is entitled to immunity”)
-
(applying immunity to clerk of municipal court with respect to quasi-judicial duties)
-
(clerk of court held absolutely immune for failing to fix bail in a misdemeanor case)
-
(failure to fix bond was within scope of official, quasi-judicial duties)
Cited by 76 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.