Fisher v. City of New York

Second Circuit

Fisher v. City of New York

312 F.2d 890

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1963

DocketNo. 213, Docket 27848

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 312 F.2d 890 (Fisher v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fisher v. City of New York, 312 F.2d 890 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Insofar as plaintiff’s claim seeking monetary compensation from the municipality for his eleven year imprisonment after a conviction for manslaughter in violation of due process of law, is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we affirm on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The attempt to distinguish Monroe v. Pape, 1961, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492; Egan v. City of Aurora, 1961, 365 U.S. 514, 81 S.Ct. 684, 5 L.Ed.2d 741, and Spampinato v. City of New York, 2 Cir., 1962, 311 F.2d 439, is “patently without merit.” Bell v. Hood, 1946, 327 U.S. 678, 683, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939.

Insofar as plaintiff’s claim is based, not on the Civil Rights Act, but directly upon Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, we affirm on the ground that plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12 (b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Bell v. Hood, supra; Shaffer v. Jordan, 9 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 393, 396-397.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Insofar as plaintiff’s claim seeking monetary compensation from the municipality for his eleven year imprisonment after a conviction for manslaughter in violation of due process of law, is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we affirm on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The attempt to distinguish Monroe v. Pape, 1961, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492; Egan v. City of Aurora, 1961, 365 U.S. 514, 81 S.Ct. 684, 5 L.Ed.2d 741, and Spampinato v. City of New York, 2 Cir., 1962, 311 F.2d 439, is “patently without merit.” Bell v. Hood, 1946, 327 U.S. 678, 683, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939.

Insofar as plaintiff’s claim is based, not on the Civil Rights Act, but directly upon Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, we affirm on the ground that plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12 (b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Bell v. Hood, supra; Shaffer v. Jordan, 9 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 393, 396-397.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 F.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-city-of-new-york-ca2-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack