Holt v. Board of Mayor

E.D. Tennessee

Holt v. Board of Mayor

421 F. Supp. 363, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13211

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee

DecidedSeptember 16, 1976

DocketNo. CIV-2-76-102

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 421 F. Supp. 363 (Holt v. Board of Mayor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holt v. Board of Mayor, 421 F. Supp. 363, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13211 (E.D. Tenn. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

This is a civil rights action for money damages against, inter alia, the defendant Kuhn’s Big K Stores, Incorporated. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). Such defendant moved for a dismissal as to it on the ground that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against it on which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such motion is meritorious.

The plaintiff is a Tennessee citizen, and such defendant is a Tennessee corporation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), (c). The plaintiff claims that such defendant is liable to him for the actions of its employee, a certain security guard, on the basis of the doctrine of respondeat superior. No other involvement personally of the corporation is alleged by the plaintiff.

The defendant-department store cannot be held liable solely as a master or principal. If the store were an active participant, it could still not be state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, the plaintiff must look to common law actions for relief against the moving defendant. Draeger v. Grand Central, Inc., C.A.10th [364]*364(1974), 504 F.2d 142, 146[7]. For such reason, the plaintiff failed to state a claim herein against Kuhn’s Big K Stores, Incorporated, on which relief can be granted. The latter’s motion hereby is GRANTED, and as to such defendant only this action hereby is

DISMISSED.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

This is a civil rights action for money damages against, inter alia, the defendant Kuhn’s Big K Stores, Incorporated. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). Such defendant moved for a dismissal as to it on the ground that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against it on which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such motion is meritorious.

The plaintiff is a Tennessee citizen, and such defendant is a Tennessee corporation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), (c). The plaintiff claims that such defendant is liable to him for the actions of its employee, a certain security guard, on the basis of the doctrine of respondeat superior. No other involvement personally of the corporation is alleged by the plaintiff.

The defendant-department store cannot be held liable solely as a master or principal. If the store were an active participant, it could still not be state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, the plaintiff must look to common law actions for relief against the moving defendant. Draeger v. Grand Central, Inc., C.A.10th [364]*364(1974), 504 F.2d 142, 146[7]. For such reason, the plaintiff failed to state a claim herein against Kuhn’s Big K Stores, Incorporated, on which relief can be granted. The latter’s motion hereby is GRANTED, and as to such defendant only this action hereby is

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 F. Supp. 363, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holt-v-board-of-mayor-tned-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack